CHANDRAN O P Vs. COCHIN CEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned DBAs are different applications filed by Cochin Devaswom Board, for short, the "CDB", seeking approval for the auction/sale conducted in relation to vedivazhipadu in different temples during the year 2011. When these matters came up on 11/01/2012, we were not shown any earlier order of this Court which requires such sanction being obtained from this Court. Approvals need be sought only when there are directions as to obtain approval. It was also then stated by this Court in clear terms that the grant of approval by the Court cannot be utilised to close off the right of any party who may have the right in law, to challenge any particular contract proceedings or even when it becomes necessary to challenge certain actions on other grounds. Orders of approvals granted by the High Court in such matters cannot be utilised to shield the CDB authorities against any allegation as to any wrong committed by it in its administrative proceedings. After perusing the materials in each of those DBAs, this Court recorded the fact that the right to conduct vedivazhipadu in the different temples covered by those DBAs have been auctioned out and granted as stated in the different applications. Anticipated income in terms of those auctions were also noted, subject to audit. It was then clarified that the said order shall not be taken as an approval of either the CDB or the grantee of any contract possessing all necessary licences in terms of the laws or as to any other matters in which they may become liable in the event of any actionable wrong. The Bench was of the view that the whole question of vedivazhipadu and the guidelines which have to be followed needed a deeper look. It also occurred to this Court that there is creation of virtual monopoly, particularly, in major temples. Specific reference was also made to different matters that have come up before the Bench, including regarding Kodungallur Sree Kurumba Bhagavathy temple, Chottanikkara Bhagavathy temple etc. The auctioning of vedivazhipadu brings considerable revenue to the CDB. We, therefore, wanted to ensure that appropriate guidelines are in place. Therefore, it was directed that CDB should place its views touching all matters before the learned Ombudsman so that a comprehensive view can be taken and proper guidelines formulated. It was also noted by the Bench that it is abundantly necessary that vedivazhipadu activities shall be carried out only in strict compliance with the laws relating to explosives, to the extent they apply, control and regulate. We had noticed that there is lack of clarity in this regard with CDB authorities. We also recalled the considerable confusion that had arisen when the issue regarding vedivazhipadu in Thriprayar Sree Ramaswamy temple became the subject-matter of a litigation recently. It was, therefore, found necessary that the jurisdictional Controller of Explosives gives necessary inputs to the learned Ombudsman so that the CDB could be advised appropriately. The Chief Controller of Explosives and the officers under his control were directed to render assistance to the learned Ombudsman as may be sought for from that end. The learned Ombudsman was requested to look into the matter and send up a report to this Court if it is found that guidelines are necessary to be formulated and finalised with the interference of this Court. The Bench also had requested the learned Ombudsman to consider the necessity of CDB taking insurance coverage to protect its interest and also on insisting that the contractors shall also possess necessary insurance cover since no victim of any unfortunate accident could be left high and dry with no relief. While the issues referred for consideration to the learned Ombudsman were pending at that end, the captioned writ petition was filed challenging tender/auction notices issued by the CDB for the conduct of vedivazhipadu in Chottanikkara temple, Ernakulam Siva temple and Thriprayar Sree Ramaswamy temple. Pithily put, the activity of vedivazhipadu falls within "Adirvettu or Kadina" as defined in Rule 2(3) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules". The captioned DBAs, which are reopened today, vide separate order, relate to such activity in different other temples under CDB, including Kodungallur Sree Kurumba Bhagavathy temple, where "Adirvettu or Kadina" is put to use.

(2.) The learned Ombudsman has placed CDB Report No. 50 of 12 dated 22nd March, 2012 in the captioned DBAs following the procedure covered by the order dated 11/01/2012 issued by the Bench in those cases and referred to in paragraph No. 1 above.

(3.) In view of the issues arising for decision on the basis of the contentions in the captioned writ petition and the views expressed by the learned Ombudsman in the aforesaid CDB Report No. 50 of 2012, the Bench had ordered listing of the captioned DBAs also. By separate order issued today, we had re-opened those DBAs to enable comprehensive consideration of all issues involved in these matters.