Allowed

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. the Deputy Director

Kerala HC29 Nov 2022DBP/67/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suo motu proceeding under Art. 226, the Kerala High Court examined the regularity of awarding electrification work for a Devaswom building at 10% above the recast estimate. Finding the tender process regular and denials of impropriety unsubstantiated, the court allowed the petition to sanction the work subject to audit.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; sanction accorded to award electrification work to Sri.P. Sreekumar at 10% above sanctioned estimate subject to audit.

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1944

¶8

DBP NO.67 OF 2022

¶9

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB REPORT NO.23 OF 2022 IN PETITION NO.1 OF 2022 – IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE WORK OF PANDALAM VALIYA KOYICKAL DEVASWOM ARANMULA GROUP – CONSTRUCTING ANNADHANAMANDAPAM AT PARKING GROUND – PROVIDING ELECTRIFICATION (RECAST ESTIMATE) – SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHENGANNOOR - 689121.

¶12

BY ADV. SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.

¶15

SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶16

SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN - AMICUS CURIAE

¶17

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

DBP No.67 of 2022

O R D E R

P.G.Ajithkumar, J

Construction of Annadhanamandapam at the parking ground in Pandalam Valiyakoickal Devaswom, Aranmula group was undertaken at a cost of Rs.4,54,00,000/-. It has an area of 2072.88 Sq.M. Electrification of the building was not done.

¶23

A recast estimate for the work amounting to Rs.31,19,000/was prepared. Executive Engineer, Electrical division, Chengannur of the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted Maramath Petition No.1 of 2022 before the learned Ombudsman for permission to carry out the said work. The learned Ombudsman considered the petition along with complaint No.83 of 2021 received from the General Secretary, Devaswom Board Contractors’ Association and submitted TDB Report No.23 of 2022 for the consideration of this Court, based on which this DBP has arisen.

¶24

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State Audit department and the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman.

¶25

¶26

DBP No.67 of 2022

¶27

An affidavit sworn to by the Executive Engineer

¶28

was submitted along with the petition. It is averred that no amount earmarked for the electrification work has been expended for the construction of the Annadhanamandapam and the estimate had to be recast. The work of electrification was initially tendered and the work was awarded to Sri.Suresh Kumar K.R at 2.08% below the sanctioned estimate. However, the electrification work had to be recast based on DSR 2016 with cost index of Pathanamthitta at 37.97%. The amount of estimate has come to Rs.31,19,000/- and the same was tendered through e-tender. The date of submission of the tenders was 30.09.2021. The lowest tender received was 19.1% above the estimated cost from Sri.P.Sreekumar. In the negotiation, the rate was reduced by him to 10% above the sanctioned estimate. Accordingly the contract was sanctioned in favour of Sri.P.Sreekumar, the contractor. The Board has accorded sanction to carry out work through the said contractor. The order of sanction is Annexure-E. Accordingly, the Board sought permission to award work in favour of

DBP No.67 of 2022

Sri.P.Sreekumar.

The complaints alleged by the General Secretary, Devaswom Board Contractors' Association are that while tendered the work, instead of 15 days, only 7 days time was given, instead of one publication, two publications on successive days were made and that a binami contractor was awarded with the work. Upon giving notice, the complainant appeared before the learned ombudsman and reiterated his complaints.

¶33

The Chief Engineer submitted a letter before the learned Ombudsman explaining the facts and circumstances relating to the awarding of work in favour of the contractor Sri.P.Sreekumar. It was explained that as per the PWD manual, which is attached to the report as Annexure O2 the period fixed is 7 days and in strict compliance to that only e- tendering was floated. The credentials of the contractor who was awarded with the work are vouchsafed by the Chief Engineer by stating that he had undertaken works for the Board earlier also. Regarding the successive publications of

¶34

¶35

DBP No.67 of 2022

¶36

the e-tender, it is observed that there did not cause any impropriety in that matter, since both the notifications were available in the website of the Board.

¶37

We have considered the matter in detail. Having the entire civil works of the Annadhanamandapom been completed, the work of electrification is essential. The amount earmarked for the electrification work has not been expended. Owing to the delay, the estimate had to be recast. It was thereafter the work was tendered. From the materials on record, we find that the process of tendering was done properly. Nothing has been produced by the complainant in order to show that his allegations are true.

¶38

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the request of the Board to award electrification work of Annadhanamandapam at parking ground in Valiyakoyickal Devaswom, Pandalam under Aranmula group to award in favour of Sri.P Sreekumar at 10% above the sanctioned estimate can be accorded. DBP is accordingly allowed. The work shall be subject to audit. The Travancore Devaswom

¶39

¶40

DBP No.67 of 2022

¶41

Board and its Engineering wing shall have strict vigil in the matter and ensure completion of the work within the contract period and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶46

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. the Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. the Deputy Director

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

Elizuba Ammu Philip Vs Jinu Thomas

Sajeev, Vs the State of Kerala

Amit Panikulam Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder Donny Panikulam Vs Chris Babu Abraham @ Babu a. Kallivayalil

Thuravoor Mahakshethra Upadeshaka Samithy Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Vinod Kumar v Vs Malabar Devaswam Board

C.G.Govindan Kutty, Vs the Cochin Devaswom Board