Disposed

S.Abhilash v. the Secretary

Kerala HC7 Apr 2021DBP/56/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Double Bench of the Kerala High Court examined complaints regarding temple construction works permitted through sponsors via oral permission. The Court held that such works must now be permitted only through written proceedings followed by a bipartite agreement/MOU to prevent financial burdens on the Board and ensure proper completion.

What did the court decide?

The Cochin Devaswom Board directed to frame guidelines requiring written permission and agreements for sponsored works and submit them within two months.

S.Abhilash Vs the Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶7

DBP.No.56 OF 2020

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

S.ABHILASH

¶10

KADAMETHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPPILLIL ROAD (181) THIRUVAMKULAM P. O. - 682 305

¶11

SUO MOTU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶14

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, CDB AUDIT, THRISSUR

¶16

R1 BY K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SR.G.P- SRI.T.K.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN-AMICUS CURIAE

¶17

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..2..

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 7th day of April 2021

¶21

Ravikumar,J.

¶22

Perused C.D.B.Report No.44/2020 filed by the learned Ombudsman for Cochin Devaswom Board in complaint No.117/2019. The captioned D.B.P was registered on its basis. It pertains to twin constructions commenced and completed in Chottanikkara Devaswom through sponsors viz; construction of 'Fly Over' for maintaining queue system and construction of a new 'Thidappilly'. The report would reveal that a request was received by the Assistant Commissioner, Chottanikkara Devaswom from M/s.Venkitesh and Sreenivas, revealing their willingness to construct queue complex in Chottanikkara Devaswom. The report would reveal that oral permission was granted by the higher authorities and the work of queue complex was later carried out under the supervision of the Maramath Wing of the

¶23

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..3..

¶24

Cochin Devaswom Board. On 14.03.2019, the work was directly entrusted to the contractor by the sponsor. It is also revealed from the report that the work is completed. As regards the construction of new 'Thidappilly', it is stated in the report that during the Deva Prasnam conducted by the Devaswom construction of 'Thidappilly' was found necessary. Thereafter, one Smt.Geetha whose address is specifically given in the report, made a request to allow her to construct an additional 'Thidappilly' at her own cost. The report would further reveal that the quotations received were handed over by the Devaswom to the sponsor and thereupon, the sponsor directly contacted a contractor. However, it is evident from the report that the contractor was not able to make frequent visits to the temple for supervising the work and for effecting payments and hence, they were entrusted to the Temple Advisory Committee. The report would reveal that the said work is also completed. It is the stand of

¶25

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..4..

¶26

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Devaswom had no financial involvement in the matters as far as these works were carried out through sponsors. At the same time, taking note of the way in which such works were permitted to be carried out and the manner in which they were carried out, the learned Ombudsman in the report suggested that it is highly necessary to frame certain guidelines in the matter of carrying out works of Devaswom through sponsors though in such matters there would be no financial burden for the Devaswom.

¶27

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards.

¶28

From the report, it is evident that the Devaswom Board specifically stated before the learned Ombudsman that the aforesaid works were carried out with the

¶29

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..5..

¶30

knowledge and permission of the Devaswom authorities. As a matter of fact, the learned Standing Counsel for the CDB reiterated the said stand before us. Having gone through the report, we are of the view that the learned Ombudsman was justified in making a suggestion for framing of guidelines in the matter of carrying out works of Devaswom through sponsors. We also felt such a requirement. Admittedly, the aforesaid works, which were not minor, were permitted to be carried out within the premises of the temple in question only orally. We have no hesitation to hold that when sponsors seeking permission to effect works of such nature within the premises of a temple under CDB and when Board found that such works can be permitted to be carried out through sponsors, the entrustment to carry out the work concerned shall be by appropriate proceedings in writing followed by execution of a bipartite agreement between the sponsor and the Board.

¶31

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..6..

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for CDB would submit that the Board had a discussion on the suggested guidelines by the learned Ombudsman and the Board is in full agreement with the same. As already stated, we are also of the firm view that framing of guidelines is highly essential to regulate such works for various reasons. Suppose through sponsorship a particular work was commenced, but in the mid way, the same was abandoned by the sponsor the entire responsibility would be with the Devaswom to complete the construction and in any such eventuality, unexpected expenditure would occur. Even if the said work is not in the priority the situation may compel the Board to raise funds to continue and complete the same. Somehow or the other, if the Board was not in a position to continue with the work on its own from the stage and left such incomplete construction within the premises of the temple concerned it may lead to various issues, both

¶33

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..7..

¶34

ritualistic and aesthetic. We are referring to such aspects to emphasis the need to have a detailed MOU or Agreement executed between the sponsor and CDB in regard to works through sponsorship, as rightly opined by the learned Ombudsman.

¶35

In the said circumstances, the guidelines suggested by the learned Ombudsman specifically mentioned in paragraph '8' to be precise in subparagraphs '1 to 9' of paragraph '8' of CDB Report No.44/2020 and acceptable to CDB, shall be adopted by the Cochin Devaswom Board and it shall be appropriately transformed into guidelines in the matter of works to be done through sponsorship. We are also of the view that certain further directions are warranted in the matter. From the report it is evident that for the aforesaid works involved in the case on hand permission to carry out them was given only orally. Hereafter, works in temples under the CDB through sponsorship, shall be permitted

¶36

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..8..

¶37

only after issuing appropriate proceedings. As relates sub-paragraph '5' of paragraph '8' of the captioned CDB report, we are of the view that an addition has to be made. True that the learned Ombudsman suggested that the sponsor should be made to deposit certain percentage of the cost of the work involved towards security to be returned after completion of the work. We are of the view that an addition on the following lines shall be inserted in sub-paragraph '5'. “In case the work was abandoned before completion by the sponsor at any stage, for any reason whatsoever, the amount in deposit shall be utilised for the purpose of completing the work in question. Amount, if any, still remains in the security deposit, shall be returned to the sponsor after completion of the work, without fail”. The percentage amount to be deposited as security shall be fixed in advance and before commencement of the work involved it shall be deposited. The amount to be deposited shall be fixed on

¶38

DBP.No.56 OF 2020 ..9..

¶39

case to case basis. Fixation of such percentage shall be made bearing in mind the fact it is sponsorship and not a case of award of work based on auction. The Cochin Devaswom Board shall frame the guidelines in accordance with the directions as above and shall produce the same before the learned Ombudsman, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months.

¶40

The D.B.P stands disposed of as above.

¶41

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE

¶42

SB/08/04/2021

¶43

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

S.Abhilash v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Abhilash v. the Secretary

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

G.Vasudevan Namboodiri Vs the Chief Vigilance Officer

State of Kerala Vs Nasar

Mohanan Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

K.K.Vijayalakshmi Vs the Secretary

Praveen P.V. Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Hanuchandran Vs the District Disaster Management Authority