IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 DBA.No. 148 of 2009 --------------------- (IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL AND SANCTION FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF SREEKOVIL FOR DEVI AND AYYAPPA AND CONSTRUCTING A MANDAPAM AND VALIYAMBALAM WITH BALIKALPURA IN KURUNGAZHAKKAVU DEVASWOM IN ARANMULA GROUP.) PETITIONER --------------- THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DEPUTY EXAMINER, LOCAL FUND AUDIT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. V.T.K. MOHANAN. BY ADV. MR. KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ................................................................................ D.B.A. No. 148 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd December, 2009 O R D E R P.R. Raman, J: The application is filed for sanction for reconstruction of Sreekovils for Devi and Ayyappan and also for construction of Mandapam and Valiambalam with Balikalpura in Kurungazhakkavu Devaswom in Aranmula Group of Travancore Devaswom. The matter was referred to the Ombudsman, who after considering the matter has submitted Report No. 173 of 2009. It is pointed out in the said report that earlier W.P(C) No. 30359 of 2009 was filed, which was referred to the Ombudsman and that Report No.147 of 2009 was filed. It is also reported that on the request of the Temple Advisory committee, though the Board by order dated 22.07.2006 had ordered the above work for Rs. 8,75, 000/-, it was not carried out and the rate was revised in 2008 and estimate amount was fixed at Rs.14,10,000/-. 2. It is reported by the Ombudsman that the expenditure for re-construction of Sreekovil cannot be said to be D.B.A. No. 148 OF 2009 2 unnecessary. It is also reported that the Chief Engineer had stated that the expenditure may be charged in the budget estimate for the year 2008-09, subject to the allocation of supplementary budget. It is suggested in the report that in case there is no budgetary provision in this year, the expenditure for the said work may be directed to be included in the next year's budget. Having considered the application as also the report of the Ombudsman and after hearing both the parties, we accord sanction for the work, directing to include the same in the priority list and take up the work, subject to the budgetary provision. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk