1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19489 of 2015. He filed the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of Ext.P3 representation dated 14.11.2009 submitted by him to refund the Earnest Money Deposit ('EMD' for short) of Rs.9,10,000/- with interest, which was deposited by him while obtaining the tender for collection of parking fee from vehicles proceeding to Sabarimala from the toll booths at Chalakayam, Elavunkal and Plappally, during the Sabarimala pilgrimage season of the year 2009 and a declaration that the inaction of the respondents in disposing of Ext.P3 is highly illegal and violative of the direction of this Court in Ext. P1 judgment dated 31.05.2013 passed in W.P.(C)No.18124 of 2012. As per the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2015, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for various reasons. Hence the appellant is now before this Court with the above writ appeal, filed under S.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

2. The facts that can be discernible from the records are as follows:
As per Ext.P2(a) tender notification dated 25.10.2010 and as per Ext.P2(b) re - tender notification dated 03.11.2009, the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board invited tenders for parking fee collection from vehicles proceedings to Sabarimala at Chalakkayam, Elavunkal and Plappally toll booths, for the period from 10.11.2009 to 25.10.2010. As per the stipulation in Ext.P2(b), the minimum amount to be quoted by the eligible tenderer was Rs.1,75,00,000/-. Including the appellant, seven persons participated in the tender. The appellant had quoted Rs.1,77,44,447/- and produced a demand draft for Rs.10,000/- along with the tender. The amount quoted by the appellant was found as the highest and hence the 2nd respondent directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, being 5% of EMD for confirmation of the tender. Accordingly, the appellant remitted a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- by cash and thereby altogether deposited a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- as EMD.
2.1 But without confirming the tender, the respondents gave an opportunity to all the tenderers to make another bid. The appellant did not participate in the re - tender. One Binish quoted a sum of Rs.1,78,55,355/- in the re - tender. But said Binish later intimated the 2nd respondent that he was withdrawing from the tender. Since no amount above that quoted by the appellant was offered by any of the other persons, the respondents sent Ext.P4 telegram to the appellant informing that the tender was confirmed to him and demanding him to pay 50% of the bid amount. But, the appellant had already returned without an intention to proceed with the tender for the reason that the respondents neglected the finalised the tender and again gave the parties an opportunity to submit fresh quotations. Then he submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 14.11.2009 to the 2nd respondent requesting to release the EMD. Since the 2nd respondent did not return the EMD, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.12471 of 2010 before this Court for refund of the EMD along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 07.11.2009 onwards. As per Ext.P5 judgment dated 21.03.2011 this Court directed the respondents to dispose of Ext.P3 representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
2.2 As per Ext.P6 proceedings dated 10/2011 the 1st respondent disallowed Ext.P3 representation submitted by the appellant, stating that the audit report of the relevant period was placed before the Ombudsman with a specific remark on the essence of forfeiture. Since the issue was informed as under consideration of the Ombudsman, the appellant submitted Ext.P7 complaint No.19/2012 before the Ombudsman. But as per Ext.P8 order dated 24.02.2012 the learned Ombudsman closed the proceedings, observing that contentions raised by the appellant no longer subsist and also observing that the matter is pending before this Co