Disposed

Suo Motu v. the Secretary

Kerala HC11 Dec 2013DBP/93/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, in special proceedings under DBP No. 93 of 2012 regarding Devaswom Board contingencies, modified the interim order of 30.05.2012. It increased the limit for board-issued permission for maramath works from ₹5 lakhs to ₹10 lakhs while retaining the audit condition.

What did the court decide?

Modifed interim order dated 30.05.2012 to permit Boards to grant permission up to Rs. 10 lakhs with 15% excess before seeking Court sanction.

Suo Motu Vs the Secretary — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶7

DBP.No. 93 of 2012 ()

¶8

(IN THE MATTER OF TDB AND CDB - VARIOUS CONTINGENCIES IN TE COURSE OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MARAMATH WORKS IN TDB/CDB AND PERMISSIONS TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OR THE OMBUDSMAN - TDB REPORT NO.57/2012 - SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.)

¶9

PARTIES:

¶10

THE SECRETARY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRISSUR

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TDB AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT CDB AUDIT THRISSUR

¶14

BY ADV. SRI. V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, TDB BY ADV. SRI. V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, CDB. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.RENJITH BY ADV.SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE OMBUDSMAN

¶15

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶17

¶18

B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶19

¶20

D.B.P. No.93 of 2012

¶21

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2013

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶24

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶25

Based on report No.57/2012 of the learned

¶26

Ombudsman, this Court has passed an interim order dated

¶27

30.05.2012. We incorporate the directions in the said order which read as follows:-

¶28

“(i) For repair/reconstruction of Sreekovil, Thidappally and Namaskaramandapam, which are absolutely necessary, the Devaswom Boards are exempted from filing petitions.

¶29

(ii) The slabs fixed for incurring expenditure and also for seeking decision of the Ombudsman will stand modified. The Board concerned may grant permission upto ₹5 lakhs and 15% excess and the Chief Engineer may grant sanction upto ₹3 lakhs with

¶30

DBP.93/2012

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

10% excess and permission petition has to be filed for valuation above ₹5 lakhs. Such applications have to be filed before this Court with the prior report of the learned Ombudsman.

¶33

(iii) After sanction orders are issued, the Boards would go, in given cases, where it is absolutely necessary, to tender excess of 25% without seeking fresh permission of the Court.

¶34

(iv) The annual recurring expenses with regard to festivals in Sabarimala and other temples could be met without obtaining any further sanction, provided sanction for such works have been granted during the earlier years.

¶35

It is specifically ordered that all expenditures incurred even in terms of this modified order will be subjected to audit.”

¶36

The learned Ombudsman has submitted a further

¶37

report No.187/2013 wherein it is suggested that minimum amount of ₹10 lakhs can be provided as the limit for getting sanction of this Court for maramath works under both the Boards. It is also suggested that in the case of repair/reconstruction of Sreekovil, Thidappally and Namaskaramandapam, necessity for sanction as already exempted, may be continued.

¶38

DBP.93/2012

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

In partial modification of the order dated 30.05.2012,

¶41

we direct that the Board can grant permission upto ₹10 lakhs and 15% excess and only in respect of the estimate of above ₹10 lakhs, permission of this Court is required. The Chief Engineer may grant sanction upto ₹5 lakhs with 10% excess. All other conditions in the order dated 30.05.2012 will remain as such. It is open to the Boards to move for any modification in future depending upon the requirements from time to time.

¶42

DBP is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶44

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶45

aks/11/12

¶46

// True Copy //

¶47

PA to Judge

Suo Motu v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suo Motu v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alex Vs Mary

Vahida and Others Vs Kasim Beevi

Jinan Vs P.K.Abraham

The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur Vs the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Cdb, Thrissur

K.v.Eravankara Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

M/S.Hardi Trebers Vs K.S.R.T.C.