Disposed

Sri.B.Radhakrishna Menon v. Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC10 Apr 2013DBP/44/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suo motu proceeding based on an Ombudsman report, the Court observed non-response by the Travancore Devaswom Board regarding a complainant's request for a Pilgrim Centre and directed the Board to decide after calling files within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Travancore Devaswom Board to take appropriate decision after calling files within two months.

Sri.B.Radhakrishna Menon Vs Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

DBP.No.44 of 2013 ( )

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA MENON, PRESIDENT, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THRIKKODITHANAM, MAHAKSHETHRAM, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPOURAM- 695 003.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB.

¶12

BY SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR LEARNED OMBUDSMAN.

¶13

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶15

¶16

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = D.B.P No.44 of 2013

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶19

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2013

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶22

This is a suo motu proceedings based on the report of the learned Ombudsman as TDB-R-40 of 2013 arising from Complaint No.318 of 2012 of complainant Sri.B.Radhakrishna Menon, President, Temple Advisory Committee, Thrikkodithanam Mahaskethram near Changanasery. The requirement is to have a Pilgrim Centre in the Temple premises. It is submitted that an estimate has been prepared already for an amount of `20,15,000/- based on 2010 schedule of rates. The work was deferred by the Chief Commissioner on 9.8.2012.

¶23

We also notice that the Executive Engineer by letter dated 24.1.2013 requested the Chief Engineer to bring to the notice of the Board the request of the complainant. The learned Ombudsman has also stated that even though request has been made to the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board to give a reply, nothing has been furnished so far.

¶24

¶25

DBP.44/13

¶26

We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board

¶27

Sri.D.Sreekumar and the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned

¶28

Ombudsman.

¶29

In the light of the above, we direct the T.D.B to take appropriate decision after calling for the files, within two months from today.

¶30

D.B.P. is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

sd/-

¶32

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶33

sd/-

¶34

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶35

krj

¶36

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Sri.B.Radhakrishna Menon v. Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.B.Radhakrishna Menon v. Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Kunhi Vs P.Kunhamad

P.v.Kunheebi Vs Nadukandi Muhammed Abdurahiman

Shahida Vs Ibrahim

Sri.v.P.Sasidharan Nair Vs the Devaswom Commissioner, Tdb, Thiruvananthapuram

K. Narayanan Kutty Vs the Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board

Ernakulam Kshethra Kshema Samithi Vs Cochin Devaswom Board