IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25076 of 2010(H)
1. P.RAVEENDRAN, PANTHAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREE VAIRAMCODE BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONR, MALABAR DEVASWOM
For Petitioner :SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 25076 of 2010 H
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that he was awarded
maramath work, viz., reconstruction of Sreekovil of the
main Deity and Sub Deity of Vairamcode Bhagavathy
Temple. It is stated that, on completion of the aforesaid
work, he is entitled to get ` 7,70,901/- and that the
payment is unduly delayed. It is complaining of the above,
the writ petition is filed.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for the second
respondent, on instructions, submits that in so far as the
reconstruction of the Sreekovil of the main Deity is
concerned, order is being issued by the Commissioner
sanctioning ` 6,56,434/- subject to approval of the Board.
It is also submitted that in so far as the work of the
Sreekovil of the Sub Deity is concerned, there is a dispute
about the work executed and, therefore, the claim has not
been sanctioned.
3. If as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel,
W.P.(C) No.25076/10
: 2 :
there is no dispute regarding the work in respect of
which ` 6,56,434/- is being sanctioned, that admitted
liability due to the petitioner shall be discharged by the
second respondent, after obtaining sanction of the Board,
at any rate, within ten days from today.
4. In so far as the remaining claims of the
petitioner are concerned, if the Board has any dispute
against the eligibility of the petitioner, it is directed that
the respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner
pointing out the objections, in which event, it will be open
to the petitioner to file his applications and his claim shall
be decided on that basis.
5. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has
any further claims in relation to the aforesaid works, such
claims of the petitioner are left open to be agitated in
appropriate proceedings.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks