TEMPLE ADVISOR COMMITTEE Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Temple Advisory Committee in Vyttila Sree Siva Subramaniya Temple has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs,-

(2.) As per Ext.P2 order the 1st respondent accorded sanction to the petitioner to execute the reconstruction work of the Sreekovil of the Temple at a cost of Rs.30,25,000.00 on 100% contribution by the 1st respondent. It was directed that the work should be done under the supervision of the Maramath Wing of the Department. It was also directed that the income and expenditure relating to the work should be subject to audit before making final payment. An agreement in that regard was directed to be executed by the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that the work was already completed and in the light of the opinions rendered by the Sthapathi of the Temple Sri.K.K.Sivan Achari and Vezhaparamban Brahmadathan Namboothiripad, teak wood alone could be used for the reconstruction work. Estimate based on which Ext.P2 order was issued contemplated use of anjili. When anjili is replaced with teak wood the estimated cost of the work was escalated to Rs.83,70,308.00. The 1st respondent issued no objection certificate for the purchase of the teak wood to be used for the work. The petitioner has submitted representations for approval of the revised estimate. In fact, the petitioner has completed the work in every respect as early as on 31/12/2016. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to release Rs.30,25,000.00after deducting the amount which was already paid and also to approve the revised estimate for Rs.83,70,308.00 and to pay that amount.

(3.) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is stated that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and the learned Ombudsman with a suggestion that teak wood should be used instead of anjili. On the request of the petitioner, no objection certificate for the purchase of the teak wood from the Forest Department was issued, but it was made clear that the petitioner had to meet the additional expenses in that regard. The estimate approved by the 1st respondent is for Rs.30,25,000.00 and sanction was accorded to carry out the work as per the said estimate with 100% contribution by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim amount as per the revised estimate of Rs.83,70,308.00. An agreement was executed by the petitioner and the amount agreed to therein is also Rs.30,25,000.00. The specific stipulation was that the amount certified by the Maramath Wing, after inspection of the work, would alone be paid. Accordingly, the 1st respondent sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.