IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 DBP.No. 49 of 2009() -------------------- (In the matter of Travancore Devaswom Board - Accommodation at Sabarimala Guest House - TDB report No.123/09 submitted by Ombudsman - sue motu proceedings initiated) COMPLAINANT: -------------------- P.E.SUBRAMANIAN, MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI.HARIHARA TRUST, 142, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BAORD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SC FOR TDB ADV.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- D.B.P.No.49 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner is one among those who had paid amounts to the Travancore Devaswom Board some time in 1994, also for the developmental activities, including construction of the residential accommodations in connection with the Sabarimala temple. The donors were granted certain perpetual licences in relation to occupation of certain rooms. With the passage of time, various issues arose and ultimately this Court intervened leading to Report No.21 by the learned Ombudsman. Following that, directions were issued even to break open locks which were voluntarily removed by the licencees. Faced with that situation, the petitioner moved this Court on the premise that he was not given notice by the learned Ombudsman. The petitioner was given an opportunity to move the learned Ombudsman. Learned Ombudsman showed the DBP.49/09 2 magnanimity to hear the petitioner again by stating that notice was issued from the office of the Ombudsman in the address given by the Board. The petitioner's contention and the contentions of Board, including views of the Chief Commissioner, were looked into by the learned Ombudsman and report No.123/09 was filed which was renumbered as DBP.49/09. 2.The parties have no disagreement with the views of the learned Ombudsman on all the matters on which clear opinion has been expressed by the learned Ombudsman. All that remains is regarding the request or suggestion of the petitioner that in lieu of three rooms, room Nos.8, 8A and 9, he would be satisfied if he is permitted to hold one among those rooms, i.e.,room No.8, to the exclusion of the other rooms provided that all the benefits that inure to him on account of those two rooms are also permitted to tag on to room No.8. This means that, as a consequence of his relinquishment or right of enjoyment of the other two rooms, viz., room Nos.8A and 9, his present entitlement as regards room No.8 will have DBP.49/09 3 to be four times as one room is a double room. At the first blush, this request may appear to be quite reasonable. But, what would ultimately turn out if it is allowed is that there will be occupation for longer tenure in comparison with the other donors and more importantly, the other donors were not given the opportunity even to make such an offer during earlier proceedings which have not been re-opened, but sought to be varied only for considering the subsequent request of the petitioner. We also find that it would be in the interest of the temple and the devotees to let a single room be occupied for longer period by the same person. This would also result in administrative inconvenience for the Board. We, therefore, reject the request of the petitioner and affirm the report of the learned Ombudsman. This matter is accordingly closed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.22/02.