IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 DBA.No. 62 of 2010() ------------------------------ (IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD-GENERAL ADMINISTRATIN- IN THE MATTER OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE IN CONNECTION WITH KARKIDAKA VAVU AT THE THIRUVALLAM DEVASWOM.). .............. PETITIONER (S): ------------------------- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPALA NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND ACCOUNTS, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- D.B.A.No.62 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This application is filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board seeking permission to carry out the works enumerated in Annexures A, B and C. As far as Annexure C is concerned, this Court had granted partial permission by order dated 8.7.2010. The carrying out of such works is yet to be reported. Taking into consideration the contents of Annexure C and the time lag that is gone after the earlier order dated 8.7.2010, we grant permission for works in Annexure C, however, that the approval of rates is not a matter on which this Court is not to grant its seal of approval and would be a matter for the Board to decide with the concurrence of the learned Ombudsman, in terms of earlier orders. DBA.62/10 2 2.As far as Annexure B is concerned, even as per the order dated 8.7.2010, permission stands granted subject to audit by Local Fund Audit. 3.In relation to Annexure A, permission was not granted as per the above order in view of the rainy season. Such fact situation continues even now. The works covered by Annexure A could be carried out after the rainy season, with the necessary concurrence from the learned Ombudsman in terms of the earlier orders. There was also an order dated 14.9.2010, whereby, the constitution of Temple Advisory Committee was required to be done at the earliest. The question of the byelaws relating to the constitution of TAC are directed to be formulated. Constitution of TAC, if such committee is not in place, will stand deferred until the issuance of the byelaws. However, if there is a committee constituted in terms of the byelaws that DBA.62/10 3 were in force, that committee will be permitted to continue to function. The DBA is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.16/11.