IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6443 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GIRIJA THAMPURAN, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.LATE KUNJIPILLAKUTTY THAMPURAN, "NEERANJANAM", EESWARASEVA PALACE, N.F.GATE, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-1. 3. SREE POORNATHRAYEESA SEVA SANGHAM, THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SRI.JAYAN, MANGAYIL, PRESIDENT, SREE POORNATHRAYEESA SEVA SANGHAM, THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-31. 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AUDIT, THRISSUR-1. ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 6443 of 2010 E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The prayers in the Writ Petition are: “i) call for the recrds leading to Ext.P5 and may quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to take up the remaining renovation work by the Board itself and to complete the same within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to realise the loss/damage caused to it on account of the non- W.P.(C).No. 6443 of 2010 2 completion of work as stipulated in Exts.P2 and P3 from the 3rd respondent. iv) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to black list the 3rd respondent from awarding any future work. v) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 5th respondent to conduct proper auditing of both the accounts maintained by the Sanghom in relation to the works undertaken by them at Sreepoornathrayeesa temple at Thrippunithura and to file a report to that effect before this Hon'ble Court, within a time frame fixed by this court.” 2. The petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows: Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura is one of the ancient as well as historical temples in the country. The petitioner is a senior member of W.P.(C).No. 6443 of 2010 3 the Royal family and a devotee of Sree Poornathrayeesa. A decision was taken to renovate the Sreekovil. Reference was made to Writ Petition No. 16904 of 2006, which is culminated in Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated that in tune with the directions contained in Ext.P1, the matter was reconsidered by the Board and it was decided to award the work to the third respondent vide Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the agreement. The work was to be completed on or before 14.11.2010, which they have not done. It is stated that Ext.P4 purports to be a representation submitted by the 4th respondent to the Board apparently seeking further time. It is contended that in terms of Exts.P2 and P3, under the guise of renovation, a long rope is given to the third respondent to administer the temple and to siphon out public money. Petitioner refers to clauses 8 and 16 of Ext.P2, clause 3 of Ext.P2 in particular. 3. By Ext.P5 the Executive Engineer has apparently decided to grant extension till 30.4.2011, subject to requirement of sanction from this Court. By Ext.P6 order, the Bench dealing with W.P.(C).No. 6443 of 2010 4 Devaswom Matters, relegated the matter to the Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Board. 4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. Ranjith and Shri. Reghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that huge sums of money are being unnecessarily expended. Extension is granted without proper consideration. Under the terms of the agreement, administration itself is being done by respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel points out that after Ext.P5 dt.27.9.2010 the Board moved for approval only on 3.1.2011 and that too making only the Local Fund Audit alone a party. 6. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, points out that the petition itself is not maintainable. He would further points out that the matter is to be considered by the Ombudsman and the petitioner got himself impleaded there. W.P.(C).No. 6443 of 2010 5 7. We take note of the fact that the challenge essentially is to Ext.P5. By Ext.P5 extension was granted, no doubt, subject to the sanction to be granted by the appropriate Bench of this Court. The Board has moved for sanction. This court passed a judicial order, viz. Ext.P6, by which the matter was relegated to the Ombudsman. In Ext.P6 the Bench has made it clear that if the Ombudsman, with or without modification, grant approval for extension, that must be treated as approval of the Bench itself. We notice that the petitioner himself has impleaded before the Ombudsman and the matter is under consideration of the Ombudsman. 8. We would think, in these circumstances, that the petitioner may have to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Erxt.P6 in relation to Ext.P5, it is open for him to ventilate his grievances before the Bench, which passed Ext.P6. On the other hand, if he wishes to pursue his contentions which he raised before this Court, it is open for him to raise the same W.P.(C).No. 6443 of 2010 6 before the Ombudsman. What we hold is that it may not be open for the petitioner to come before this Court with this Writ Petition. 9. Without prejudice to the remedies open to the petitioner and leaving open all the reliefs sought for, we close this Writ Petition. We make it clear that we have not considered the merits of the contentions raised by either party. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm