IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 464 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN DBA.26/2009 Dated 19/03/2009 REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P. PRAKASH RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND ACCOUNTS, TRAVNAOCRE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHACODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -3. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 4.6.2009, THE COURT ON 17/06/2009, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 464/2009 IN D.B.A. 26/2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. This is a review petition filed by the State. D.B.A. 26/2009 was filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, seeking approval of Annexure-A estimate and to permit them to undertake the work of construction of Prasadam Complex at Sabarimala. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the DBA, it was averred that for various reasons stated the Appam and Aravana Complex has to be re- located to a distant convenient place and they prepared a project for re- locating the prasadam preparation unit and the proposed construction is for a building having four floors. In that the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit has filed a statement through the Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. In that statement, it was pointed out that a sub-committee constituted to suggest the measures for implementing the Sabarimala Master Plan and reference is made to the Government Letter dated 18.2.2009 forwarding the minutes of the sub committee held on 6.2.2009. The sub-committee itself consists of the Additional Chief RP 464/09 IN DBA 26/2009 :2: Secretary, Shri. P.V. Nalinakshan Nair, Devaswom Commissioner and Sri. Ravikumar, Chief Engineer (General), Travancore Devaswom Board, as members. Based on the recommendation of that committee Government recommended that the Prasadam Complex should be situated in the south eastern side of the temple whereas the present estimate is for construction of Prasadam Complex at Pandithavalam. Changes were made for preparing the estimates. It may be noticed that the recommendation of the sub-committee formed by the Government itself is to relocate the Appam Aravana Complex to a place on the south east side of the temple. But by order dated 19th March, 2009 the application for the proposed construction of Prasadam Complex at Sabarimala was sanctioned by this Court and noticed that the work is conducted under the Master plan. As a matter of fact, when the DBA came up for consideration on 12.3.2009 the Local Fund was given time to offer their remarks within ten days and the matter was posted to 19.3.2009 and based on the remarks thus offered, the order was passed on 19.3.2009. Subsequently the Ombudsman - retired Justice Sri. R. Bhaskaran, in his report No. 47/2009 has submitted that if the Prasadam Complex is shifted to the new place suggested by the sub committee, the cost of construction will be less having regard to the presence of Chadranandan Road and sought for appropriate orders to be passed to RP 464/09 IN DBA 26/2009 :3: modify the order in the light of what is stated in the said report. Report No. 47 of 2009 is dated 30th March, 2009. In the said report, this Court directed the Government as well as the Forest Department as also to the Devaswom Board to offer their remarks and stayed the construction of the Prasadam Complext as sanctioned by us s per order dated 19.3.2009. This order was passed on 1.4.2009. 3. In the review application, the main ground urged is that the proposal made by the Board for construction of a four storied building is not provided in the Master plan, that the Government of Kerala has approved the Master Plan for Sabarimala prepared by M/s. Eco Smart India Ltd.,, that any construction which is not provided for in the Master plan is against the approval granted and according to the review petitioner, the proposed site is different from what is provided in the Master plan. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into the order passed by this Court and hence it is a mistake of fact while granting sanction. 4. Whether or not ultimately the Prasadam Complex has to be constructed on the south eastern side of the Temple or at Pandithavalam as proposed in the Master plan has to be decided after considering as to whether such shifting of the location is to be made having due regard to the larger interest of the devotees without affecting the environmental factors. RP 464/09 IN DBA 26/2009 :4: In this regard, it has to be noticed that a sub committee appointed by the Government headed by the Additional Chief secretary himself has suggested that the proposal in the Master plan is not suitable. The Ombudsman has also accorded approval of that suggestion. Merely because the Master plan has provided a particular place for construction of the Prasadam Complex, it does not necessarily mean that the Appam Aravana complex will have to be constructed in that spot itself. Rather, if it is felt that the construction in the proposed place will be of no use and only will cause inconvenience to the devotees, necessarily this will have to be shifted to a convenient place. In the circumstances, the High Power Committee appointed by this Court headed by the Additional Chief Secretary, consisting of the representatives of the Forest Department as also the representative of M/s. Ecco Smart India Ltd. will go into the question as to whether exactly the Prasadam Complex has to be constructed without violating the basic norms in the Master plan. As we have already noticed, the statement filed by the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit itself has pointed out that it was the Government by their letter dated 18.2.2009 forwarded the minutes of the sub committee held on 6.2.2009 constituted to suggest the measures to implement Sabarimala Master Plan and the sub committee formed by the Government has recommended that the Prasadam RP 464/09 IN DBA 26/2009 :5: Complex should be better if it is in the south eastern side of the Temple. 5. In such circumstances, it is not open to the review petitioner to say that the present shifting of the site for construction of the Prasadam Complex is made unilaterally by the Board, rather it is only based on the recommendation of the sub committee appointed by the Government. However, since a High Power Committee is appointed by this court to implement the Master plan, final decision shall be taken by the High Power Committee in this regard. The order granting approval of the estimate prepared is found to be an estimate prepared not in accordance with the new schedule of rate. Further in case the High Power Committee implementing the master plan finds changes to be effected in the matter of construction of the Prasadam Complex a revised estimate will have to be prepared. In such circumstances, we recall the order passed in DBA 26/2009 granting sanction of the estimate. The High Power Committee may submit revised estimate after locating the place for construction of the Prasadam Complex for approval of this Court. RP 464/09 IN DBA 26/2009 :6: To this limited extent as stated above and for our own reasons as stated above, the review is allowed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-