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 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 DBA.No. 144 of 2009() --------------------- (IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD – GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - IN THE MATTER OF REFIXING OF VAZHIPADU RATES AT SABARIMALA. PETITIONER (S): ------------- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 3. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND ACCOUNTS TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 3. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- D.B.A.No. 144 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2009 O R D E R Raman, J. This is an application, seeking approval of this Court, to refix the rates for certain Vazhipadu conducted in Sabarimala, as shown in Annexure-B. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that earlier this Court has accorded permission to the Devaswom to revise the rates of various Vazhipadu at Sabarimala, with effect from the 1st of Chingam, 1185 M.E., and that was implemented. But, in the light of the wide spread criticism from the public, the Board decided, subject to approval of this Court, to refix the rate with a slight modification. 2. As a matter of fact, the earlier Order passed by this Court was on an application moved by the Board for an upward revision of the rates and it was pointed out then that the D.B.A.No.144 of 2009 2 rate then existing is exclusive of the material cost and the revised rate, if implemented, is inclusive of the cost of materials, so that the devotees need not incur any expenditure with regard to the material cost. The matter was referred to Ombudsman for consideration and report. The Ombudsman recommended that sanction could be accorded by this Court to the revised proposal. It was thereafter that this Court accorded permission for the approved revision. 3. In a matter like this, knowing fully that it will affect the public, the Board could have given publicity regarding the upward revision proposed and after consideration, if any modification is required, with such modification, the application could have been moved. As a matter of fact, this Court is not favouring any increase in the Vazhipadu rates. But considering the increase in the cost of materials, if the Board thought as a part of the administrative decision to increase the Vazhipadu rates, all that this Court has done is to accord sanction for the administrative decision to be implemented. We, therefore, direct D.B.A.No.144 of 2009 3 the Board that hereinafter any rate of revision in the Vazhipadu items or in the price of the Prasadams could be done by giving publicity to the proposal, and after considering the public sentiments, make necessary notification, if found necessary, and then move an application for any such approval. 4. However, considering the fact that the present application is to reduce the rate as originally proposed, we are only too happy to grant sanction. Accordingly, permission is granted, as sought for. D.B.A. is allowed as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.