The notice issued for revenue recovery was barred by limitation, affirming trustee obligations in managing temple properties.

1. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, the 1st respondent herein, tendered the right to conduct "pay and use comfort station" on the east - nada of Sree Guruvayoorappan Temple during the period from 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2014. The petitioner offered an amount of Rs.11,11,111/-. He deposited Rs.50,000/- as earnest money deposit. He was the highest bidder. He, however, retracted stating that he fell ill immediately after submission of the quotation. The 1st respondent therefore forfeited his earnest money deposit and the right was re - tendered. The highest bidder quoted only Rs.5,33,334/-. Therefore, the 1st respondent sustained a loss of Rs.4,83,334/-. On the request of the 1st respondent, revenue recovery proceedings was initiated for realisation of Rs.5,47,446/-, which includes that amount of loss and the additional charges. Ext.P6 is the recovery notice issued under S.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act , 1968. The petitioner, alleging that Ext.P6 notice is illegal and issued beyond the period of limitation, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs, -
"I. Declare that the 1st respondent by initiating revenue recovery proceedings for the amount from the petitioner, which is unliquidated damages and its recovery is closed once by it earlier by Ext.P5 proceedings, and the present attempt to recover the said time barred debt through the Ext.P6 notice and the steps pursuant to that, has acted illegally and violative of the law declared by this Hon'ble court and therefore, the proposed recovery is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is deserving to be met with act of consolation by releasing the EMD amount of Rs.50,000/- forfeited by the 1st respondent back to him;
II. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order quashing the Exhibit P6 notice or other steps taken under the for realising any amount from him for the default of running the comfort station of the 1st respondent during the year 2003-04;
III. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order, or direction to the 1st respondent for releasing the forfeited EMD money of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, as an act of consolation towards an ailing human being who served it during the healthy days."

2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioner disputes his liability and that question requires adjudication based on evidence and therefore, the Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. The address of the petitioner as well as the person came second in the first tender were the same. That indicated that there was obvious collusion between the petitioner and the other tenderer. Therefore, when the petitioner withdrew, the other bidder could not be accepted. The reason stated by the petitioner for retracting from the tender is incorrect. In such circumstances, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and he was blacklisted. In the re - tender, the amount quoted by the highest bidder was very low and the loss sustained thereby should be compensated by the petitioner. The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee as per resolution No.80 dated 07.12.2017 decided to initiate recovery proceedings for realisation of the loss sustained to the 1st respondent. Ext.R1(e) is a copy of the resolution. Since the 1st respondent quantified the loss and decided to initiate action on 07.12.2017, there is no bar of limitation to the claim of the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the 1st respondent sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. No separate counter affidavit was filed by respondents 2 and 3.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and