GIRIJA THAMPURAN Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayers in the Writ Petition are:

(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows: Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura is one of the ancient as well as historical temples in the country. THE petitioner is a senior member of the Royal family and a devotee of Sree Poornathrayeesa. A decision was taken to renovate the Sreekovil. Reference was made to Writ Petition No. 16904 of 2006, which is culminated in Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated that in tune with the directions contained in Ext.P1, the matter was reconsidered by the Board and it was decided to award the work to the third respondent vide Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the agreement. THE work was to be completed on or before 14.11.2010, which they have not done. It is stated that Ext.P4 purports to be a representation submitted by the 4th respondent to the Board apparently seeking further time. It is contended that in terms of Exts.P2 and P3, under the guise of renovation, a long rope is given to the third respondent to administer the temple and to siphon out public money. Petitioner refers to clauses 8 and 16 of Ext.P2, clause 3 of Ext.P2 in particular.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would point out that huge sums of money are being unnecessarily expended. Extension is granted without proper consideration. Under the terms of the agreement, administration itself is being done by respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel points out that after Ext.P5 dt.27.9.2010 the Board moved for approval only on 3.1.2011 and that too making only the Local Fund Audit alone a party.