Allowed

The Secretary , Cochin Devaswom Board v. the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department

Kerala HC14 Aug 2017DBP/30/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Devaswom Board sought permission to execute repair works at Chottanikkara Temple based on a revised estimate through the original contractor. The Court approved this course after verifying satisfaction of the Ombudsman but deprecated lapses in initial damage assessment.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to execute repair works at revised estimate through same contractor; directive to avoid future lapses in estimation.

The Secretary , Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶5

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/23RD SRAVANA, 1939

¶6

DBP.No. 30 of 2017

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

THE SECRETARY , COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOA

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM AUDIT OFFICE, THRISSUR.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T.K. ANANTHAKRISHNAN

¶13

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ.

¶15

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

¶16

D.B.P. No. 30 OF 2017

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2017

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶21

This matter has been listed before this Court pursuant to CBD Report No. 10 of 2017 dated 2.2.2017 submitted by the learned Ombudsman. The circumstances leading to the said Report are discernible from the opening paragraph of the Report, which reads as follows:

¶22

“This is a maramath petition filed by the Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is averred that on 07.10.2013 the Engineering Wing of the Board has prepared an estimate for effecting urgent repairs to the rooms in the Darsana and Sudarsana Lodges attached to Chottanikkara Temple. The

¶23

DBP 30/2017

¶24

¶25

estimate amount was Rs.8,25,000/-. The Board invited tenders and the paper publication issued is Annexure A1 produced. Two tenders were received of which the lowest tenderer was invited for further negotiation, namely Star Marine, but further reduction was not agreed upon. Hence, the same was confirmed in favour of the lowest tenderer at 4.5% above the estimate rate. Annexure A2 is the order dated 20.9.2014. It is stated that during the execution of the work, repairs had to be effected to 38 rooms against the original estimate. Besides, the drainage system in the building were collapsed and were reconstructed. In order to drain out the waste water, an RCC drain having 30 metres length has been newly constructed and provided slop on the western side to drain out the water to the public drainage. The PVC pipe provided in the bathroom having 110 mm diameter has been replaced with 160 mm diameter pipes. The old septic tank had become useless and a new septic tank has been constructed to connect it with the proposed sewage treatment plant. On account of the additional works executed, there arose the necessity to prepare a revised estimate and the revised estimate is for Rs.20,80,000/-dated 06.04.2016. Annexure A3 is

¶26

DBP 30/2017

¶27

¶28

the revised estimate produced. The same is stated to have been approved by the Board subject to the approval of the Honourable High Court. Since the revised estimate is prepared during the execution of the work, the Board had no option except to entrust the work with the same contractor. The Board order is Annexure A4 dated 21.6.2016 produced. The resolution of the Board No. 37 referred to in Annexure A4 is dated 8.6.2016. It is prayed that the Honourable High Court may be pleased to grant permission to Cochin Devaswom Board to execute the repair works of Darsana and Sudarsana Blocks of Chottanikkara Temple in accordance with the revised estimate and through the same contractor in the terms and conditions of the original work order and in terms of Annexure A4 Board order. The petition is dated 15.7.2016.”

¶29

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 10.07.2017, the respondent Devaswom has filed an affidavit dated 20.07.2017, pointing out the facts and figures. The learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom submits that, in connection with the repairs to the rooms in 'Darsana' and

¶30

DBP 30/2017

¶31

¶32

'Sudarsana' lodges attached to the Chottanikkara Temple, an estimate was prepared years back for a total sum of Rs. 8,25,000/-, which is only in respect of 20 rooms (out of the total of 38) badly damaged at that point of time. The tender notification was published on 01.08.2014 and the last date for submitting the tender was 20.8.2014. Out of the two tenders received, the lower tender was accepted on 20.9.2014 and an agreement was executed on 09.10.2014, to have the work completed within six months. By virtue of the subsequent developments including retirement and transfer of the officers concerned, the matter could not be proceeded further and there was delay from the part of the Contractor as well. Finally, after making alternate arrangements, the work was commenced by the Contractor, who turned up before the authorities on 15.06.2014 and undertook to complete the same. In the said such circumstances, the Report submitted by the Engineer of the

¶33

DBP 30/2017

¶34

¶35

Devaswom to terminate the work contract because of the lapse on the part of the Contractor was kept in abeyance and the Contractor was permitted to complete the works who, according to the Devaswom, has completed the said works to the satisfaction of the Devaswom in December 2015, at the agreed rates of 2012, without any escalation or any claim in this regard. The learned counsel also points out that, in the course of time, serious damage caused to the remaining rooms was also noted and the Contractor was required to have the same rectified as well. It was accordingly, that the entire work was completed in respect of all the 38 rooms for the revised estimate of 20,80,000/fixed on 06.04.2016. The said revised estimate was, in fact, approved by the Board as per Annexure A3, subject to the approval of this Court, which aspect has been noted by the learned Ombudsman in his Report dated 02.02.2017. It is also bought to the notice of this Court that, because of the

¶36

DBP 30/2017

¶37

¶38

subsequent developments, some audit objection has been raised, which has been answered properly from the part of the Devaswom, referring to the sequence of events. It is also pointed out that, after completion of the works, the premises were inspected by the learned Ombudsman, who has accorded satisfaction of the completion of works, as discernible from the report dated 02.02.2017.

¶39

After hearing both the sides and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that approval has to be granted to the course pursued by the Devaswom in having completed the works at the revised estimate of Rs.20,80,000/-.

¶40

However, before parting the case, it cannot be mentioned that the damage to the 18 rooms, out of the total 38, should also have been assessed by the authorities to have included at the time of preparation of the Original estimate itself. The lapses in this regard cannot but be

¶41

DBP 30/2017

¶42

¶43

deprecated. It is also made a mention that such lapses shall not occur with regard to the future affairs of the Devaswom

¶44

and any lapse in this regard from the part of the Officers will

¶45

be viewed seriously, to be dealt with appropriate terms.

¶46

The DBP stands closed accordingly.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

JUDGE

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

ks.

True copy

P.S. To Judge

DBP 30/2017 8

DBP 30/2017 9

The Secretary , Cochin Devaswom Board v. the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary , Cochin Devaswom Board v. the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department

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

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs P.K Madhavan

The Ministry of Communications, Vs Shyamala M.L

P.R.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Sree Elamaarankulangara Bhagavathy Dev. Vs the Commissioner (Hr & Ce) Admn. Dept

Temple Advisory Committee Vs the Secretary

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director,Ksad