IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH APRIL 2011 / 5TH VAISAKHA 1933 DBP.No. 39 of 2010() ------------------------------ IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD-SUPPLY OF ARAVANA CONTAINERS BY SIDCO TO THE BOARD-TDB REPORT NO.84/2010 BY THE OMBUDSMAN-SUO-MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-REG. .................... PARTIES: -------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, TDB. 2. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. BY ADV. MR.R.T. PRADEEP, SC. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TDB-AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.P. PRAKASH. ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN. ADV. SRI.D. ANIL KUMAR, AMICUS CURIAE. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D.B.P. No. 39 of 2010 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 25th day of April, 2011 O R D E R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. As part of the consideration of the Local Fund Audit Report and different other reports, this Court issued orders, on the basis of which the TDB and SIDCO made submissions before the learned Ombudsman. The learned Ombudsman came to the opinion that the disputes have to end by the SIDCO paying TDB `9,720/- with 6% interest from the date of claim till date of payment. We are of the view that contentious issues in relation to the contract in hand could not have been ended that way though we had indicated in our order dated 23.02.2011 that the decision of the learned Ombudsman may have all the trappings of an award. Since the reference of the learned Ombudsman was not DBP.39/2010 : 2 : on consent of parties, we are of the view that the parties cannot be tied down to the decision of the learned Ombudsman. It is for the Board to decide whether it will sue SIDCO. If such suit is filed, the competent court may have to consider any request relevant under Section 14 and other enabling provisions of the Limitation Act also. Leaving open all such issues, DBP is closed, clarifying that the report of the learned Ombudsman would not stand in the way and would not amount to findings which would bind the parties either way. We clarify that, we issue such directions because the matter came up only because of the audit reports and not otherwise. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks/25.04 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge