IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 DBA.No. 39 of 2010() ------------------------------- (IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL AND SANCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CHUTTAMBALAM IN RAPPUZHA DEVASWOM IN CHANGANACHERRY GROUP) ...... PETITIONER (S): --------------------------- THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- THE DEPUTY EXAMINER, LOCAL AUDIT AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN THIS DEVASWOM BOARD APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = D.B.A.No.39 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.By the earlier order, this Court had observed that the expenditure proposed does not appear to be workable, having regard to the total income generated by the temple. We are aware that a temples is not to be gauged by the income derived. It was suggested that the TDB should consider the justification for investments in temples without appropriate income. 2.We should also remind ourselves that suggestions for making Chuttambalam and the like cannot be had without appropriate instructions from those involved in regulating the ritualistic practices since it has a clear nexus to the belief and faith of the devotees. We do not find any statement in the affidavit accompanying this DBA that the suggestion to have a Chuttambalam is generated on the basis of any recommendation of DBA39/10 -: 2 :- the Thanthri or on the basis of any advice on which the TDB could have acted to put up a Chuttambalam as suggested. Though it is stated on behalf of the Temple Advisory Committee that it had conducted an Ashtamangalya Devaprasna during 2004 and that following the recommendations, certain Upadeva temples were made, it is not stated by the Temple Advisory Committee that there was any recommendation at least in the Ashtamangalya Devaprasna that there should be a Chuttambalam. Under such circumstances, we close this DBA with opportunity to the TDB to file clear report disclosing all facts and factors, if necessary. The TAC will also be entitled to seek appropriate relief with better materials. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Sha/0309 Judge.