JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The petitioner in W.P(C)15406 of 2017 is a devotee of P.D. Manikanteswaram Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple, Kottarakkara, who has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 order, whereby the price of 'Unniappam Vazhipadu' has been enhanced from Rs. 20/- to Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. The enhancement is stated as exorbitant in all respects, without any regard to the facts and figures in relation to the cost of production and the unlawful enrichment sought to be made by the Devaswom Board at the cost of poor devotees. W.P(C) 18484 of 2017 has been preferred by the Travancore Devaswom Board seeking for police protection to run the vazhipadu counter in the said Temple, which is stated as being forcefully obstructed by the respondents 4 to 9 taking the law into their hands and causing huge loss to the Devaswom. Since the issue involved in both these cases relates to the root cause as to the pricing of Unniappam Vazhipadu in the Temple and the alleged disproportionate escalation of the price, both the cases were heard together, taking W.P( C)No.15406 of 2017 as the lead case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. 3. The respondent Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 17.06.2017, followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 30.06.2017 and yet another additional counter affidavit dated 13.09.2017. Some additional documents have also been filed along with the said proceedings. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed their version as per the counter affidavit dated 27.06.2017, virtually supporting the contentions raised by the petitioner in the said writ petition and deprecating the course sought to be pursued by the Devaswom. The party respondents, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in W.P(C)18484 of 2017 have put forth their stand, asserting that they had not caused any threat to the law and order situation and were only trying to explain the actual facts and circumstances in so far as their grievance is concerned. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the 8th respondent in the said case, almost in line with the version putforth by the other party respondents. 4. Kottarakkara Maha Ganapathy Temple is famous in many respects and the 'Unniappam Vazhipadu' conducted there is stated as known all over. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the 8th respondent in the said case, almost in line with the version putforth by the other party respondents. 4. Kottarakkara Maha Ganapathy Temple is famous in many respects and the 'Unniappam Vazhipadu' conducted there is stated as known all over. Though the main deity is Lord Siva, 'Unniappam' is offered to the deity Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy. As per the custom and practice, the offering of Unniappam as 'Nivedyam' has to be prepared in front of the deity and the process starts from the dawn to the dusk. 'Unniappam' so prepared are offered to Lord Maha Ganapathy and later, it is distributed freely to the devotees. It is pointed out that this offering is known as 'Udayasthamana Pooja', which came into vogue centuries ago and because of the heavy rush to perform the said Vazhipadu, advance booking is necessary. 5. It is revealed from the pleadings and proceedings that preparation of 'Unniappam' is part of the duty of the 'Keezhsanthi' of the Temple. The entire cost of production including the raw materials and labour (engaging sufficient number of personnel) is met by the Keezhsanthi, who is being paid by the Devaswom to an appropriate extent as decided from time to time. Till the year 2008, the price of Unniappam which was being sold by the Devaswom through their counter, was fixed as Rs.10/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. The entire amount was to be given to the Keezhsanthi. The matter came up for scrutiny before the Ombudsman, appointed by this Court, who after examining the facts and figures made a proposal, also considering the demand for increasing the price and also the expenditure being met by the Devaswom for providing the infrastructure. It was accordingly, that the price of Unniappam was increased to Rs.15/- per packet (containing 10 Unniappams); out of which Rs.12.50/- was to be given to the Keezhsanthi, while the remaining Rs.2.5/- would go to the Devaswom Exchquer as 'Muthalkkoottu'. The need to enhance the price of Unniappam was felt by the Devaswom Board who, as per the proceedings dated 08.11.2012 decided to increase the price of Unniappam from Rs.15/- to Rs.20/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. The need to enhance the price of Unniappam was felt by the Devaswom Board who, as per the proceedings dated 08.11.2012 decided to increase the price of Unniappam from Rs.15/- to Rs.20/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. Out of the said amount, Rs.15/- was decided to be given to the Keezhsanthi, considering the escalation in the cost of raw materials and the cost of labour; while the remaining extent of Rs.5/- was to go to the Exchequer of the Devaswom as 'Muthalkkoottu'. 6. While so, the Keezhsanthi submitted Ext.R1(a) representation dated 07.02.2017 before the 5th respondent- Administrative Officer referring to the hike in price of the raw materials like rice, jaggery, sugar, coconut oil, ghee, dry ginger powder, cardamom, plantain (Kadalippazham), coconut, firewood/gas etc and also the cost of labour in so far as nearly 35 persons were being deployed by him, in connection with the procurement of raw material and preparation of Unniappam. The factual data as to the cost of materials, which existed earlier and the market price, as prevailing on the date of submitting the representation were also furnished, to have proper appreciation. The said representation was considered, recommended and forwarded by the 5th respondent to the Asst. Devaswom Commissioner vide Ext.R1-B dated 13.02.2017. The proposal made by the Keezhsanthi for enhancement was certified by the 5th respondent to an extent of Rs.40 /- per packet containing 10 Unniappams, out of which Rs..25/- was suggested to be given to the Keezhsanthi and the balance of Rs.15/- was to be collected as 'Muthalkkoottu' by the Devaswom. 7. The Asst. Devaswom Commissioner, as per Ext.R1G dated 14.02.2017 forwarded the proceedings for facilitating the rate enhancement of the Vazhipadu- Unniappam to the Dy.Devaswom Commissioner, pointing out that the price could be fixed as Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams, out of which Rs.25/- could be given to the Keezhsanthi and Rs.10/- could be appropriated by the Devaswom as 'Muthalkkoottu'. It is seen from the endorsement made on Ext. It is seen from the endorsement made on Ext. R1C Statement, giving the split up figures as to the cost of raw materials-existing price and the proposed hike, that the price of Unniappam was modified as Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams, out of which only Rs.20/- was ordered to be given to Keezhsanthi (providing a hike of Rs.5/- to the existing Rs.15/-) and causing Rs.15/- (providing a hike of Rs.10/- to the existing 5') to be appropriated by the Devaswom towards 'Muthalkkoottu'.The said proceedings of the Dy.Commissioner dated 02.03.2017 were considered by the second respondent/ Commissioner, in the light of the remarks offered by the Finance and Accounts Officer on 10.03.2017 and the rate of Unniappam was fixed as Rs.35/- per cover containing 10 Unniappams, out of which Rs.20/- was ordered to be given to the Keezhsanthi , while the remaining Rs.15/- was ordered to be appropriated by the Devaswom as 'Muthalkkottu'. A copy of the said order has been produced as Ext.P2 by the petitioner, which is under challenge in W.P(C)No.15406 OF 2017. 8. It is contended by the petitioner/devotee that the increase in the rate of Unniappam made by the Devaswom is to an unconscionable extent, without any regard to the nature and sanctity of 'Vazhipadu', which is an offering to the deity. It is also stated that every opportunity is being taken by the Devaswom to make it an 'industrial activity' and to procure undue advantage, under the guise of necessity to enhance the rate, with reference to the price escalation of the raw materials and labour. When enhancement (proposed to be) given to the Keezhsanthi towards escalation of cost of raw materials is only to an extent of Rs.5/-, the enhancement of 'Muthalkkoottu' to be appropriated by the Devaswom for doing no act or contribution is nearly 200%, by virtue of the hike from Rs.5 to Rs.15/-. The version of the Devaswom, as putforth by the learned Standing Counsel, is that fixation of price of Vazhipadu item is purely an administrative action at the hands of the Devaswom, which does not call for judicial scrutiny. Reliance is sought to be placed on Ext.R1 M judgment dated 02.06.2016 in W.P.(C)18841 and 19098 of 2016. The version of the Devaswom, as putforth by the learned Standing Counsel, is that fixation of price of Vazhipadu item is purely an administrative action at the hands of the Devaswom, which does not call for judicial scrutiny. Reliance is sought to be placed on Ext.R1 M judgment dated 02.06.2016 in W.P.(C)18841 and 19098 of 2016. It is also pointed out that unification of the rate of the various 'Vazhipadu' items was felt necessary by the Board and it was accordingly, that ROC dated 01.04.2016 was issued, seeking to implement the revised rates, which was the subject matter of consideration in Ext.R1M judgment. The observation made by the Court in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, that in so far as the rates are concerned, the courts cannot substitute its wisdom or ideas about the rates for commodities or articles or for performance of poojas utilizing articles and materials, was pressed much. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the very next sentence in Ext.R1 M judgment it is mentioned that it would not be wise for the judiciary to step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever. This by itself is sufficient to indicate that, if any arbitrary exercise is demonstrated as pursued by the Devaswom, it is quite possible for this Court to intervene in larger public interest, especially to protect the rights and liberties of the devotees to the requisite extent. The question to be considered is whether any such arbitrary instance is demonstrated in the present proceedings. 9. It is pointed out by the Devaswom that, while doing unification of the Vazhipadu rates as per ROC dated 01.04.2016, no increase in rate was provided in respect of 'Unniappam' in the Kottarakkara Maha Ganapathy Temple. In almost all the Temples under the Devaswom including Sabarimala, that price of Unniappam is stated as fixed as Rs.15/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams, whereas in the instant case, the fixation is much on the lower side (while effecting the revision);as it is fixed only as Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. In almost all the Temples under the Devaswom including Sabarimala, that price of Unniappam is stated as fixed as Rs.15/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams, whereas in the instant case, the fixation is much on the lower side (while effecting the revision);as it is fixed only as Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. In this context, it is to be noted that, in other temples, Unniappams are being prepared by the Devaswoms, meeting the entire cost of raw materials and also the cost of labour, whereas in the case of Kottarakkara Maha Ganapathy Temple, the entire cost of raw materials and the cost of labour are met by the Keezhsanthi. The Keezhsanthi would get only Rs.20/- by virtue of the revision (revised from Rs.15 to Rs.20/-); whereas the Devaswom would get Rs.15/- (enhancement from Rs.5/- to Rs.15/-, i.e. to an extent of 200%). In other words, the extent of enhancement secured by the Devaswom in relation to the extent of enhancement provided to the Keezhsanthi, (who meets the entire cost of raw materials and labour) is relatively quite higher and unsustainable. The version of the Devaswom is that, the Devaswom has to meet various expenses including salary to the employees deployed by the Devaswom in this Temple and also in the various other Temples coming under this Group. But that by itself cannot be taken as a ground to sustain the enhancement, if the extent of enhancement ordered with reference to the cost of raw materials and cost of labour to be satisfied by the Keezhsanthi/contractor is beyond the reasonable limit. 10. On comparing the rates which prevailed earlier with specific extent of segregation (Rs.15/- payable to the Keezhsanthi towards raw materials and labour, while Rs.5/- to the Devaswom as Muthalkkoottu) out of the total of Rs.20/- per packet, it has now been enhanced to Rs.35/- giving only Rs.20/- to the Keezhsanthi, while appropriating the entire balance to the Devaswom as 'Muthalkkoottu'. Such a segregation based on the enhancement does not appear to be correct or sustainable, having no rationale. In other words, the Devaswom is not supposed to make undue benefit under the guise of the demand raised by the Keezhsanthi for enhancement of the rate payable to him with reference to the escalation of the cost of raw materials and labour deployed by the Keezhsanthi. 11. The issue can be approached from another angle as well. In other words, the Devaswom is not supposed to make undue benefit under the guise of the demand raised by the Keezhsanthi for enhancement of the rate payable to him with reference to the escalation of the cost of raw materials and labour deployed by the Keezhsanthi. 11. The issue can be approached from another angle as well. Even according to the Devaswom, in connection with the earlier instance of hike ordered by the Devaswom in the year 2012, the documents produced by the Devaswom as Exts. R1E and R1F are adequate enough to explain the position. The then prevailing rate of Unniappam as Rs.15/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams was sought to be enhanced by the Keezhsanthi with reference to increase in the cost of raw materials and labour , as per his application dated 13.08.2012. The matter was considered by the Devaswom Commissioner, who submitted report dated 16.10.2012 before the Devaswom and after considering the same, in the light of various other proceedings, the Devaswom Board, as per Ext.R1E order dated 08.11.2012 , enhanced the rate of Unniappams to Rs.20/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams, out of which Rs.15/- was ordered to be given to the Keezhsanthi towards the cost of raw materials and labour; whereas Rs.5/- was ordered to be appropriated by the Devaswom as 'Muthalkkoottu'. It is also specifically stipulated in Ext.R1E that the said enhancement could be implemented only subject to the approval to be sought for and obtained from this Court. It was in the said circumstance that the Devaswom Board filed DBA 2 of 2013 before this Court seeking for approval of the enhancement of rate from Rs.15/- to Rs.20/- ( Rs.15/- to Keezhsanthi and Rs.5/- to the Devaswom as Muthalkkoottu). This was considered and approved by this Court as per Ext.R1F order dated 09.01.2013, which reads as follows: “Having perused the petition along with the materials attached thereto and having heard both sides, we are of the view that the suggestion is fair and reasonable, and therefore, sanction can be granted. Hence, this DBA is ordered as prayed for.” It was pursuant to the said approval given by this Court as per Ext. R1F, that the second respondent Devaswom Commissioner passed Ext.R1D order dated 16.01.2013, implementing the enhancement. There is no dispute with regard to the practice and procedure being pursued by the Board in effecting the revision of rates as above. R1F, that the second respondent Devaswom Commissioner passed Ext.R1D order dated 16.01.2013, implementing the enhancement. There is no dispute with regard to the practice and procedure being pursued by the Board in effecting the revision of rates as above. But unfortunately, with regard to the revision sought to be made and implemented in the year 2017, no such proceeding was ever filed by the Devaswom before this Court and no approval was sought for, before giving effect to the enhancement, which is now under challenge. In the said circumstance, the Devaswom is not justified in contending that they can pass any order of their choice and that the same, being purely administrative, is beyond the judicial scrutiny of this Court. 12. When the matter came up for consideration, this Court took note of the specific averment of the Devaswom in paragraphs 5, 8, 9 and 10 of their counter affidavit dated 17.06.2017, that the reason for such an excessive extent of enhancement (200%) by raising the 'Muthalkkoottu' from Rs.5/- to Rs.15/- [while ordering enhancement of only Rs.5/- in respect of the escalation in the cost of raw materials and labour payable to Keezhsanthi, raising it from Rs.15/- to Rs.20/-] was referring to the fact that the cost of raw materials and labour had got increased by three fold, after the last revision. It is true that the rates have to be enhanced to an appropriate extent based on the increase in the cost of raw materials and the cost of labour. Proportionate enhancement can be made with regard to the 'Muthalkoottu' (to be appropriated by the Devaswom) as well. When the Devaswom concedes that the three fold increase in the cost of raw materials and labour is the basis necessitating enhancement of the amount payable to the Keezhsanthi, in turn ordering enhancement of Rs.5/- (by raising it from Rs.15/- to Rs.20/-), whereas the enhancement of 'Muthalkkoottu' to be appropriated by the Devaswom stands enhanced by 200% (from Rs.5-/ to Rs.15/-), the reason stated by the Devaswom and the result sought to be achieved do not reconcile with each other. As it stands so, it could be termed as arbitrary or perverse, warranting interference of this Court ; more so since it comes within the purview of the observations made by this Court in paragraph 6 of Ext. R1M judgment. 13. As it stands so, it could be termed as arbitrary or perverse, warranting interference of this Court ; more so since it comes within the purview of the observations made by this Court in paragraph 6 of Ext. R1M judgment. 13. Yet another important aspect to be noted is that, the Devaswom has specifically pleaded in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated 17.06.2017 that the revision of Vazhipadu rates has been effected after meticulous consideration and analysis of the report and recommendation of the various lower authorities such as Administrative Officer, Asst. Devaswom Commissioner, Devaswom Commissioner and the Finance and Accounts Officer. The said fact is reiterated in paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit as well, where it is stated as follows: “In the instant case the Devaswom Commissioner, Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner who constitute the Expert Committee have recommended for the present revision as evident from Ext.R1G, H and I.” 14. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 14.06.2017, taking note of the pleadings and materials on record, this Court passed an order to cause the matter to be considered by referring to the Committee for fixation of price available in the Devaswom and to make appropriate submissions in this regard. Pursuant to the said order, the matter was considered by the said Committee consisting of Commissioner of Devaswom, Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Pathanamthitta, who submitted the minutes/report of the meeting held on 16.06.2017 in a sealed cover, which was opened on 27.06.2017 in the open court. The report is to the effect that the Committee had considered all the relevant facts and had decided to re-fix the price of Vazhipadu Unniappam at Rs.30/- per cover containing 10 Unniappams, out of which Rs.20/- was to be given to the Keezhshanti (towards the cost of raw materials and cost of labour), while Rs.10/- could be appropriated by the Devaswom as 'Muthalkkottu'. We have gone through the said proceedings in detail, which reveals the sequence of events as well. 15. As evident from the pleadings and proceedings, the request for enhancement of the rate was mooted for the first time by the Keezhsanthi, as per Ext.R1A dated 07.02.2017, which was considered and a proposal was submitted by the Deptuy Devaswom Commissioner on 02.03.2017, fixing the same as Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. 15. As evident from the pleadings and proceedings, the request for enhancement of the rate was mooted for the first time by the Keezhsanthi, as per Ext.R1A dated 07.02.2017, which was considered and a proposal was submitted by the Deptuy Devaswom Commissioner on 02.03.2017, fixing the same as Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams. The opinion of the Finance and Accounts Officer was sought for and it was based on the above proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner and that of the Finance and Accounts Officer dated 10.03.2017, that Ext.R1H order came to be passed by the Commissioner on 17.03.2017, fixing the price as 'Rs.35/-' per packet containing 10 Unniappams, also providing the segregation of amounts as Rs.20/- to the Keezhsanthi towards cost of raw materials and labour, while Rs.15/- was to be appropriated by the Devaswom as 'Muthalkkoottu'. 16. The meeting held on 16.06.2017 pursuant to the order dated 14.06.2017 of this Court was by the very same Committee, consisting of the Commissioner of the Devaswom, Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of the Devaswom, Pathanamthitta, [whose reports dated 02.03.2017 and 10.03.2017 had led to Ext.R1H decision of the Committee dated 17.03.2017 ordering disputed extent of revision of rates]. The minutes of the meeting of the same Committee, held on 16.06.2017 reveals that, after passing Ext.R1H order, complaints were received from different corners, pursuant to which, the second respondent/Commissioner had passed an order on 29.03.2017 freezing Ext.R1H order for the time being and the Deputy Commissioner was required to submit a report on the complaints. It was accordingly, that the matter was reconsidered by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, who submitted a report dated 09.05.2017 to the effect that the revised rate could be fixed as Rs.30/- per packet containing `10 Unniappams, out of which Rs.20/- could be given to Keezhsanthi towards cost of the raw materials and labour (providing 33 ¹/³ % enhancement) and Rs.10/- could be appropriated by the Devaswom towards Muthalkkoottu (providing 100% enhancement). As evident from Ext.R1J proceedings dated 12.05.2017 of the Commissioner, appropriate rate was suggested by the Commissioner to the Devaswom, based on the report of the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Pathanamthitta and Finance and Accounts Officer, pointing out that Rs.30/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams (with Rs.20/- to be payable to the Keezhsanthi and Rs.10/- to be payable to the Devaswom towards 'Muthalkkoottu') would be appropriate. It was absolutely without any regard to the contents of Ext.R1J dated 12.05.2017 submitted by the second respondent/Commissioner, that the Devaswom issued Ext.R1K order fixing the rate of Unniappam vazhipadu as Rs.35/- per packet containing 10 Unniappams (Rs.20/- to be payable to Keezhsanthi and Rs.15/- to be payable to the Devaswom towards Muthalkkoottu). In other words, fixation of the revised rate as Rs.30/-per packet containing 10 Unniappams (with a segregation of Rs.20/- to the Keezhsanthi and Rs.10/- to the Devaswom) as finalised by the Committee of Devaswom Commissioner, Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner has been simply given a 'gobye', by the Devaswom; more so when it was not the Devaswom who had passed the original order (Ext.P2) providing an enhancement of rate as Rs.35/- (with Rs.20/- to be payable to Keezhsanthi towards cost of raw materials and labour and Rs.15/- to be payable to Devaswom towards Muthalkkoottu). To put it more clear, the version of the Devaswom in paragraph 5 and 29 that revision of rate of Unniappam Vazhipadu as ordered by the Devaswom vide Ext.P2 dated 17.03.2017 and vide Ext.R1K order dated 23.05.2017 is based on the version of the expert body consisting of the Devaswom Commissioner, Deputy Devaswom Commissioner and Finance and Accounts Officer, is quite contrary to the factual position revealed from the materials produced before this Court. 17. In the course of ascertaining the position, particularly in the light of the outcome of the minutes of the meeting held by the Expert Committee consisting of Devaswom Commissioner, Deputy Devaswom Commissioner and the Finance and Accounts Officer, held on 16.06.2017, we perused the relevant file made available by the Devaswom before this Court. The contents of the file clearly reveal that the decision recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Body of the Devaswom [i.e. Devaswom Commissioner, Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Pathanamthitta] held on 16.06.2017, finding it appropriate to re-fix the revision of rate as Rs.30/- per packet (with segregation of the amount as Rs.20/- to be payable to Keezhsanthi towards cost of raw materials and labour and Rs.10/-as the 'Muthalkkoottu' to be appropriated by the Devaswom) is perfectly in order. In the above circumstance, we accept the outcome of the proceedings/Minutes of the said Expert Body of the Devaswom and hold that the said rate fixed by the Expert Body of the Devaswom stipulating the price of Unniappam Vazhipadu as Rs.30/- per packet (Rs.20/- payable to the Keezhsanthi towards cost of raw materials and labour, while Rs.10/- to the Devaswom towards Muthalkkoottu) is liable to be sustained and given effect to. Ext.P2 order/(Ext.R1H) dated 17.03.20107 passed by the Devaswom Commissioner and Ext.R1K order 23.05.2017 passed by the Travancore Devaswom Board stand set aside and modified to the said extent. This shall be given effect to immediately. W.P.(C)No.15406 of 2017 stands allowed to the said extent. 18. Coming to W.P.(C)No.18484 of 2017, seeking for Police protection, an interim order was passed by this Court on 02.06.2017 in the following terms: “Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondents 4 to 9 by Speed Post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale of 'Unniappam' in the temple is being prevented by respondents 4 to 9. Though complaint has been filed, no action has been taken in the matter. The respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that sufficient police protection is granted to ensure the maintenance of law and order in the matter relating to sale of 'Unniappam' in the temple counter.” 19. We find it appropriate to make the said interim order absolute in so far as the rate stands modified as given above. If any threat to the law and order situation with regard to sale of 'Unniappams' in the Devaswom counters and in realising the amount as now mentioned above, effective and adequate protection shall be given by the Police abating the threat to the law and order situation. WP(C) 18484 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 16.06.2017 by the Committee consisting of the Devaswom Commissioner, Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Pathanamthitta shall form part of the proceedings. The file produced by the learned Standing Counsel stand returned to him. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. WP(C) 18484 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 16.06.2017 by the Committee consisting of the Devaswom Commissioner, Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Pathanamthitta shall form part of the proceedings. The file produced by the learned Standing Counsel stand returned to him. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. On pronouncement of the judgment in the open Court today, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that in view of declaration made by this Court to make the proceedings of the Devaswom Board transparent and to avoid further confusion, if at all any, it would be appropriate if it is made a mention that further revision of rates shall be subject to approval of this Court by filing appropriate proceedings. 2. We find that by giving such a direction, no prejudice will be caused to the Devaswom and unnecessary litigations can be avoided to the possible extent. In the said circumstance, it is ordered accordingly. We make it clear that as and when necessity arises to enhance the 'Vazhipadu' rates, the Devaswom Board shall bring it to the notice of the Ombudsman and based on the report of the Ombudsman, appropriate orders would be passed by this Court so as to meet the need of the hour. Revision of rates shall be implemented by the Devaswom accordingly. This order will form part of the judgment.