IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 DBP.No. 59 of 2009() -------------------- IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD - CDB REPORT NO.146/2009 SUBMITTED BY OMBUDSMAN - SUO-MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED. PETITIONER -------------------- K.NARAYANAN KUTTY, 28/575/31, PALIYAM ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC FOR CDB. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, COCHIN DEVASWOM AUDIT, THRISSUR. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- D.B.P. No. 59 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of December, 2009 O R D E R P.R.Raman, J. In CDB Report No. 146 of 2009 is filed in Complaint No. 283 of 2009, received by the office of the Ombudsman regarding the premature withdrawal of the Fixed Deposit Receipt. Ombudsman after hearing parties, submitted this report. It is stated that two fixed deposits maturing on 03.03.2009 and 25.03.2009 were decided to be encashed by the Board as per resolution No. 8 on 27.02.2009. But the Special Commissioner had opined that instead of encashing the matured deposit, it was better to renew it and take loan so that there will be no complaint of encashing the fixed deposits. But, later after renewing the deposits, the Special Commissioner decided to encash it on 11.05.2009 as the amounts were immediately required for maramath work in the Chottanikkara Temple. These amounts represented the amounts in Guruthy accounts for which Guruthy were already conducted. 2. Actually instead of withdrawing the amount as and when it matured the Bank renew it for further period. But subsequently amounts were withdrawn before the renewal period expired. The Ombudsman points out that during the hearing, payment required to be made to the contractor was pointed out. In the DBP No. 59 of 2009 2 circumstances, we feel that if the withdrawal of the amount is out of necessity for payment to the contractor that cannot be said to be wrong or illegal. But whether funds were available otherwise or whether premature withdrawal is found absolutely necessary and prudent act is not for this Court to consider at this stage let that be looked into by the Local Fund Audit in the course of Regular Audit. 3. Regarding the financial matters, a separate report is being filed. That will be considered separately when such report comes before this Court. The complainant seems to be a person who has approached the Ombudsman with 40 such complaints and Ombudsman has considered all such complaints and made report to this Court wherever found necessary. But the allegation raised against the office of the Ombudsman if it is without any basis when it has to be deprecated. Hence we issued notice to the complainant as to why action shall not be taken against him. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner he tendered unconditional apology for the averments made in paragraph 1 and 2 of page 2 of the reply to the counter submitted by him to the counter statement of the Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board. In view of this and taking a lenient view, we accept the apology and drop further proceedings. However the appellant shall not give room to such complaints in future. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc