High Court Kerala High Court

The Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Deputy Examiner on 3 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Deputy Examiner on 3 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

DBA.No. 147 of 2009()


1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY EXAMINER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :03/12/2009

 O R D E R
          P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                   -------------------------------

                      D.B.A.No.147 of 2009

                   -------------------------------

               Dated this the 3rd December, 2009

                            O R D E R

Raman, J.

This is an application to accord sanction for

effecting urgent repairs and maintenance to Sadyalayam, Malika

Building, Anakkottil and providing drainage system in Thiruvarppu

Devaswom in Kottayam Group, supported by an affidavit. It is

stated that the Board accorded administrative sanction for the

work; the work was awarded on contract to Sri.T.Sajeev at

32% excess over the sanctioned estimate rates on negotiation

with the Board; and the Board also accorded sanction for the

same. That means the estimate prepared was modified on

negotiation, without permission from this Court. However, the

Ombudsman, in his report, states that he had occasion to see the

Malika Building and Sadyalayam, and urgent repairs are to be

done. But according to him, with regard to the amount for which

DBA.No.147 of 2009

2

the work is awarded, nothing is brought to his notice to show

that it is excess.

2. In the circumstances, accepting the report of the

Ombudsman, sanction sought for is granted, and it may be

included in the priority list and will be taken up subject to

budgetary provision. We make it clear that it should also be

subject to usual audit.

D.B.A. is allowed as above.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

nj.