ORDER : (Anil K. Narendran, J.) This DBP is registered based on CDB Report No.73 of 2018 of the learned Ombudsman in Petition No.16 of 2018 filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board seeking permission to execute the renovation work of Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple, which is a temple under its management, on the basis of Annexure A2 revised estimate and Annexure A3 work order. The report of the learned Ombudsman reads thus; "This is a maramath petition filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board through the Secretary seeking permission to the applicant Cochin Devaswom Board to execute the renovation work of Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple, on the basis of Annexure A2 revised Estimate and Annexure A3 work order. The petition is supported by an Affidavit sworn in to by the Secretary. 2. It is averred that the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple belongs to the Cochin Devaswom Board and renovation work of the temple was started as early as on 2010 after the temple was substantially damaged due to fire accident. The work was awarded to the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple Renovation Committee on contribution basis and the contribution of the Board was fixed as 100% of the valuation amount or Rs.50 lakhs whichever is less. The work though started, could not be completed after a long period and the OMBUDSMAN for the Board visited the temple and based on the inspection conducted, SMC No 107 of 2017 was issued directing the Board to explain as to why there is delay in completing the work and to state the possible time within which the work can be completed. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer of the Board submitted Annexure A1. Thereafter. the Engineering Wing of the Board was directed to prepare a revised estimate to execute the work and as directed by the Board, the Engineering Wing of the Board prepared a revised estimate amounting to Rs.51,00,000/- as against the initial estimate of Rs 1,10,00,000/-sanctioned earlier. Technical sanction is Annexure A2 and the Order of the Board approving the estimate subject to decision of the Honourable High Court is Annexure A3. It is requested that permission be granted to execute the renovation work of the temple. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued, the Audit filed their remarks. It is stated that the original work was sanctioned on condition that out of the estimate for Rs. It is requested that permission be granted to execute the renovation work of the temple. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued, the Audit filed their remarks. It is stated that the original work was sanctioned on condition that out of the estimate for Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, the Board is to provide contribution of 100% or Rs.50 lakhs whichever is less and the balance amount is to be contributed by the Committee and now the estimate is revised to Rs 51 lakhs after a period of seven years and after making the payment of more than Rs. 24 lakhs in cash apart from sanctioning materials in kind (copper). The comparative statement attached to the file does not state the reason for the variation in the estimate amount. Even if the reduction of the estimate amount, the Committee was approached to find out the balance. In terms of the original sanction and the Committee is going to get Rs.50 lakhs after revision without taking into consideration the income earned by the Committee. 4. Learned counsel Shri T.K. Sajeev appeared on behalf of the Board and the Law Officer was also present. On behalf of the Audit, the Deputy Director was present. The Assistant Executive Engineer was also present for discussion when the case was taken up for hearing today. 5. Based on the discussion I had with the Assistant Executive Engineer, I am made to understand that the reduction of the estimate amount to Rs.51,00,000/- as against Rs. 1,10,00,000/- initially estimated happened due to the fact that used and old copper sheet available in other temples were supplied by the Department and hence the cost of the materials supplied was reduced from the initial estimate to items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17. Therefore, there is a total saving of Rs.64,88,791/-. For some of the items, there is an excess as per the comparison of the initial estimate. A Statement is filed, copy of which is marked as Annexure01. 6. Normally, when a revised estimate is prepared, the estimated value goes up whereas in the present case, initial estimated amount got reduced as per the revised estimate which is to the advantage to the Cochin Devaswom Board. A Statement is filed, copy of which is marked as Annexure01. 6. Normally, when a revised estimate is prepared, the estimated value goes up whereas in the present case, initial estimated amount got reduced as per the revised estimate which is to the advantage to the Cochin Devaswom Board. Since the work was started by the Temple Advisory Committee, fixing the contribution of the Board at 100% or Rs.50 lakhs whichever is less, in view of the revised estimate, there may not be any contribution by the Renovation Committee, but it is to be noticed that even the original sanction order, contribution fixed is 100% valuation to be borne by the Board or Rs.50 lakhs whichever is less. Hence there is no profit as such earned by the Committee. However, the Board can explore the possibility of some amount of contribution to be made by the Renovation Committee by generating from publicso as to reduce the liability of the Board. However, since the work is of an essential nature, the petition seeking sanction be allowed by the Honourable High Court and the Board be directed to complete the work without further delay as more than eight years have elapsed after the renovation work was started." 2. On 29.10.2018, when this DBP came up for consideration, this Court noticed that there is a drastic reduction in the total estimate in so far as the amount fixed as Rs.1,10,00,000/- about seven years back has been brought down to Rs.51 lakhs, which is of course is to the benefit of Devaswom. At the same time, it is stated that the reduction to the estimate is because of the supply of old copper sheets available in other temples, by the Department. By the order dated 29.10.2018, the Devaswom Board was required to file an affidavit showing the particulars as to what is the quantity of copper that has been supplied, what is the value that has been fixed in this regard, etc. 3. The order dated 29.10.2018 was followed by the order dated 14.11.2018, which reads thus; "The factual aspects noted by the Ombudsman in the report reveal that, earlier, the estimate in connection with the work was finalised and sanctioned at Rs.1.1 crore as per the Annexure.A1. But now a revised estimate has been prepared and the same has come down to Rupees Fifty one lakhs after a period of seven years. But now a revised estimate has been prepared and the same has come down to Rupees Fifty one lakhs after a period of seven years. It is also stated in the report that some used and old copper sheets available in the other temples were supplied by the Department and hence the cost of materials came to be reduced and that there was a saving of Rs.64,88,791/-. The genuineness and immediate requirement of the work to be carried out stands certified by the Ombudsman. However, when the matter came up for consideration earlier, we required the Devaswom Board to give the facts and figures in respect of the extent of copper supplied; pursuant to which a statement dated 03.11.2018 has been filed;giving the particulars in the form of a table. It is pointed out that a total of 2804.017 Kgs. of copper was supplied, having a total value of Rs.12,95,455.85. In other words the total cost could be considered as Rs.51,00,000/- + Rs.13,88,791/-Rs.64,88,791/-. If this alone is the actual cost to be satisfied as on date, how the same to be fixed and sanctioned as Rs.1.1 crore seven years ago by the Devaswom Board, appears to a matter to be looked into. Since nothing is stated in the statement in this regard, the Devaswom Board is given a chance to explain by filing an affidavit in this regard." 4. The order dated 14.11.2018 was followed by the order dated 05.12.2018, which reads thus; "This matter came to be registered pursuant to Report No.73/2018 dated 7.9.2018 submitted by the learned Ombudsman in relation to the affairs of 'Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple' under the Cochin Devaswom Board. 2. An application was submitted before the learned Ombudsman by the Devaswom Board seeking for permission to execute the renovation works of the temple on the basis of Annexure A2 revised estimate and Annexure A3 work order. The discussion made by the learned Ombudsman in the Report reveals that the same work was sought to be effected about seven years ago at an estimate of nearly 1.1 crores and the Cochin Devaswom Board was to provide contribution of 100% or Rs.50 lakhs whichever was less, leaving the balance to be contributed by the Temple Renovation Committee. The discussion made by the learned Ombudsman in the Report reveals that the same work was sought to be effected about seven years ago at an estimate of nearly 1.1 crores and the Cochin Devaswom Board was to provide contribution of 100% or Rs.50 lakhs whichever was less, leaving the balance to be contributed by the Temple Renovation Committee. It is pointed out that the work could not be completed, though it was started, and later, pursuant to further steps, a revised estimate has been prepared, whereby the total cost is stated as reduced to Rs.51 lakhs. It is pointed out that the same is much beneficial to the Devaswom Board, in so far as, more than 50% of the expense (original estimate) could be saved. The reduction in the estimate is pointed out as also due to the supply of some materials (copper). 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 29.10.2018, the Devaswom Board was required to explain the particulars as to the supply of copper sheets and also as to the circumstance under which the reduction to a huge extent was resulted. This was followed by another order passed on 14.11.2018, which is in the following terms: The factual aspects noted by the Ombudsman in the report reveal that, earlier, the estimate in connection with the work was finalised and sanctioned at Rs.1.1 crore as per the Annexure.Al. But now a revised estimate has been prepared and the same has come down to Rupees Fifty one lakhs after a period of seven years. It is also stated in the report that some used and old copper sheets available in the other temples were supplied by the Department and hence the cost of materials came to be reduced and that there was a saving of Rs.64,88,791/-. The genuineness and immediate requirement of the work to be carried out stands certified by the Ombudsman. However, when the matter came up for consideration earlier, we required the Devaswom Board to give the facts and figures in respect of the extent of copper supplied; pursuant to which the statement dated 03.11.2018 has been filed; giving the particulars in the form of a table. It is pointed out that a total of 2804.017 Kgs. of copper was supplied, having a total value of Rs. 12,95,455.85. In other words the total cost could be considered as Rs.51,00,000/- + Rs.13,88,791/-Rs.64,88,791/-. It is pointed out that a total of 2804.017 Kgs. of copper was supplied, having a total value of Rs. 12,95,455.85. In other words the total cost could be considered as Rs.51,00,000/- + Rs.13,88,791/-Rs.64,88,791/-. If this alone is the actual cost to be satisfied as on date, how the same to be fixed and sanctioned as Rs.1.1 crore seven years ago by the Devaswom Board, appears to a matter to be looked into. Since nothing is stated in the statement in this regard, the Devaswom Board is given a chance to explain by filing an affidavit in this regard. 4. Pursuant to the said order, an additional affidavit, dated 28.11.2018, has been filed by the Secretary of the Devaswom Board; paragraphs 3 and 4 of which are relevant and hence they are extracted below: 3. It is submitted that the initial is for Rs.1,10,00,000/-prepared as per Delhi Schedule of Rate (DSOR) 2010. The Revised Estimate for Rs.51,00,000/- is also prepared as per DSOR 2010 considering site condition. Since there is major difference in amount, the Engineering wing of the Board is directed to prepare a report on comparison of amount between initial estimate and Revised Estimate and they submitted report on 27/11/2018. True copy of the report No.H 1.1846/09 dated27/11/2018 submitted by the Engineering wing is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A4. 4. It is submitted that as per the Annexure A4 report, there is a total savings of Rs.64,88,791/- and an excess of Rs.5,88,791/-, ie. (Rs.1,10,00,000/-) (Rs.64,88,791/-) + (Rs.5,88,791/-) Rs.51,00,000/-. The major difference in the amount is in the use of irul/anjili wood instead of teak wood, copper materials and copper nail. There is a savings of Rs.28,55,416/- in teak wood work, Rs.23,23,860/- in copper sheet material including use of 2804 kg old copper sheet worth of Rs. 12,95,455/- and Rs.7,71,925/- in copper nail. The teak wood is used for 'Sreekovil' and 'Balikkalpura' doors in revised estimate and not for planks of copper sheet roofing. The planks for copper sheet roofing is in irul/anjiliwood work (incorporated in item no.6 of revised estimate). Thus the irul/anjiliwood work has increased from initial estimate amount. The weight/area of copper considered in initial estimate for material copper is 12.50 kg/m2 and 10.56kg/m2 but as per site condition weight/area of copper in Revised Estimate is 6.05 kg/m2 only. The planks for copper sheet roofing is in irul/anjiliwood work (incorporated in item no.6 of revised estimate). Thus the irul/anjiliwood work has increased from initial estimate amount. The weight/area of copper considered in initial estimate for material copper is 12.50 kg/m2 and 10.56kg/m2 but as per site condition weight/area of copper in Revised Estimate is 6.05 kg/m2 only. The weight/area of copper nail in initial estimate is 2.50kg/m2 but as per site condition in Revised Estimate weight/area of copper nail is only 0.093kg/m2 only. The roofing with copper sheet area in initial estimate is 575 m2 but as per site condition in Revised Estimate the area is 495m2 only. 5. The learned Standing Counsel points out that both the original estimate as well as the revised estimate were prepared as per the 'DSOR of 2010' (Delhi Schedule of Rates). But, apart from the amount credited in respect of supply of copper sheets, there is also a change with regard to the type of wood to be used. In the original estimate, 'teak wood' was to be used; whereas in the revised estimate, it is 'Irul/Anjili' and, as such, there is substantial change in the wood value, bringing it down, in view of the decision to make use of Irul/Anjili wood in place of teak wood. 6. However, this Court has serious doubts as to whether the change now proposed by using 'Irul/Anjili' wood in place of teak wood for roof and other structures (except doors) will be adequate enough to save the construction from termite attack and natural calamities. We are not given to understand whether this was on the basis of any sanction/clearance given by the technical committee or Chief Engineer or such other competent authorities, but for an attempt to have the construction limiting it to whatever amount is provided by the Devaswom Board; i.e. Rs.50 lakhs; compromising with the quality of the work involved. 7. In the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the matter requires to be considered by the learned Ombudsman again, with reference to these vital aspects, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the technical experts of the Devaswom or such other authorities. The Registry is directed to forward the proceedings to the learned Ombudsman for scrutiny and submission of additional report." 5. The Registry is directed to forward the proceedings to the learned Ombudsman for scrutiny and submission of additional report." 5. By the order dated 07.01.2020, this Court impleaded the members of the additional 2 nd respondent Temple Renovation Committee of Pazhayannur Bhagavathi Temple as additional respondents 3 to 15. Notice was issued to additional respondents 3 to 15 by speed post, returnable within two weeks. The Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to file an affidavit as to whether the renovation work has already been completed and if not, what exactly is the stage of the renovation work. 6. The order dated 07.01.2020 was followed by the order dated 10.08.2020, which reads thus; "The captioned DBP was registered based on Report No.73 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards in relation to the renovation works of the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple, under the Cochin Devaswom Board (for short, 'CDB'). 2. See the order dated 5.12.2018. It would reveal that initially, an estimate was prepared for renovation works as per the 'DSOR of 2010' (Delhi Schedule of Rates). Going by the original estimate for Rs.1,10,00,000/- Teak wood was to be used for the renovation work. Subsequently, a revised estimate was prepared for an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- and that was also prepared as per DSOR 2010, taking into account the condition of the site. The initial estimate of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was brought down to Rs.51 lakhs pursuant to the decision to use Irul/Anjili in place of Teak wood. The report No.25/2019 in the above DBP would further reveal that the work was carried out in terms of the revised estimate. In fact, the report would also reveal that the revised estimate and the petition for sanction was filed after completion of the work. It is in the circumstances that the learned Ombudsman observed that the petition filed before the Ombudsman was one for ratification and not for previous sanction. The report would also reveal that earlier the CDB was advised to get a report from an expert regarding the quality of the wood with reference to its life and thereupon a report was submitted by Sri. The report would also reveal that earlier the CDB was advised to get a report from an expert regarding the quality of the wood with reference to its life and thereupon a report was submitted by Sri. Raman Bhattathiripad, the former Chief Engineer/Chief Technical Expert of CDB, to the effect that the wood 'Anjili' comes under the primary species of wood and it is long lasting timber species which would not be affected by fungus staining and not easily be attacked by termites. The opinion of the expert was that Anjili could be substituted in place of Teak wood. Taking note of the said report and also the fact that the work was over, the learned Ombudsman, as per CDB Report No.25 of 2019, observed that since the work was already over and in such circumstances what could be done is only to issue a further direction to the CDB to ensure that hereafter in respect of maramath works, the work should be started only after obtaining sanction. But the fact is that without filing any other maramath petition for getting previous sanction to effect further renovation works, further works were started. What is a matter of concern is that such works were commenced without getting approval for such works as also for the estimate for such works. No re-revised estimate, subsequent to revised estimate for Rs.51,00,000/- was also got approved. 3. A statement has been filed in the DBP by the additional 5th respondent pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.2.2020. Along with the same, Annexures R5(a) to (c) were produced. Paragraph 5 therein would reveal that the Renovation Committee had raised an amount of Rs.2.11 crores through donations from the devotees. What is the source of power for collecting such a huge amount? It is further stated therein thus:- "Apart from this, the Renovation Committee constituted in the year 2009 has been taking care of the temple festivals and rituals and the expenses incurred is estimated at Rs. 1.80 crores during the last 10 years." 4. At the same time, paragraph 4 of the said statement would reveal that the renovation work was started in the year 2012 and for undertaking additional works, (not based on any approved estimate) the Renovation Committee had already spent an amount of Rs.2.30 crores. 1.80 crores during the last 10 years." 4. At the same time, paragraph 4 of the said statement would reveal that the renovation work was started in the year 2012 and for undertaking additional works, (not based on any approved estimate) the Renovation Committee had already spent an amount of Rs.2.30 crores. In fact, the Renovation Committee got a grievance that out of Rs.50 lakhs agreed to be given to the committee by the CDB, only an amount of Rs.24,11,928/- was so far been given. In fact, additionally, the CDB had given some more amount and the total amount given by the Board is Rs.29 lakhs. We are at a loss to understand as to how the committee could collect and incur expense of Rs.2.3 crores ? As noticed hereinbefore, for the approved renovation works the initial estimate was Rs. 1.10 crores and at the same time it was subsequently revised to Rs.51 lakhs. 5. In the context of the aforesaid statement, it is relevant to refer to section 76A of the Travancore Hindu Religious Institutions Act. It provides for formation of Temple Advisory Committee. There is nothing on record which would reveal that the Renovation Committee was approved as the Temple Advisory Committee. So also, there is nothing on record which would reveal whether a Temple Advisory Committee, as provided under section 76A, was constituted in respect of the temple in question. Since the Renovation Committee was constituted in the year 2009, it is un-understandable as to how the said committee, if at all it is approved as Temple Advisory Committee, could continue for a period of 11 years and conduct temple festivals and rituals and incur expenses. Nothing is also on record to know whether the said committee had submitted separate accounts for audit in relation to the renovation works as also the expenses incurred for conducting festivals and rituals, periodically. The afore-extracted paragraph 5 would reveal that the Renovation Committee had collected 2.11 crores and expended about 1.80 crores,for the latter purpose during the aforesaid period. In the light of the statement filed by the additional fifth respondent, prima facie, what is evident that they had actually started renovation works without obtaining proper sanction and also without getting approval for the estimate. Report No.25/2019 would reveal that the approved renovation works were already completed. In the light of the statement filed by the additional fifth respondent, prima facie, what is evident that they had actually started renovation works without obtaining proper sanction and also without getting approval for the estimate. Report No.25/2019 would reveal that the approved renovation works were already completed. It is also not discernible from the materials on record as to whether for such additional works, permission was granted by the CDB and if at all permission was granted, whether maramath petition was filed for getting previous sanction for effecting such works and whether an estimate therefor, was prepared and got approved. In such circumstances, the statement of the committee that they had raised Rs.2.11 crores or more through donations from the devotees and that they had already expended Rs.2.30 crores are to be explained by them. 6. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement would gather the impression that for renovation works, the committee had spent an amount of Rs.2.30 crores and incurred expenses of Rs. 1.80 crores after collecting Rs.2.11 crores for conducting festivals and rituals, during the last 10 years. The functioning of the said committee and incurring expenses in the aforesaid manner is a matter which requires serious scrutiny, in accordance with law. In such circumstances, touching the facts discernible from the statement filed by the additional fifth respondent pursuant to our order dated 10.2.2020, including the matters referred above the Secretary, CDB shall file a detailed affidavit. Such an affidavit should contain statement as to how and under what circumstances the Renovation Committee which was constituted in the year 2009 was permitted to continue to function as temple festival committee and why despite the statutory mandate under section 76A of the Travancore Hindu Religious Institutions Act, TAC was not constituted in respect of the said temple. Further, it should also contain as to whether the collection of Rs.2.11 crores (Rs.2.30 crores ?) was by using sealed coupons issued by the Board and whether in respect of the renovation works as also the expenses for temple festivals etc., the committee had submitted separate periodical accounts for audit. If such accounts are not submitted for periodical audit, what action was taken by the Board for obtaining and getting such accounts audited. Such a detailed affidavit shall be filed, without fail, on or before24.8.2020." 7. If such accounts are not submitted for periodical audit, what action was taken by the Board for obtaining and getting such accounts audited. Such a detailed affidavit shall be filed, without fail, on or before24.8.2020." 7. The order dated 10.08.2020 was followed by the order dated 30.06.2021, which reads thus; "Circumstances revealed from the records appended to Report No.73 of 2018 in Petition No.16 of 2018 led to the registration of the captioned DBP. It pertains to renovation work of PazhayanoorBhagavathy Temple. Taking note of the extent of renovation works to be undertaken, earlier an estimate was prepared for an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- as per DSOR of 2010. Obviously, at that point of time, the proposal was to effect construction using Teak wood. Later, a revised estimate was prepared in terms of DSOR of 2010 for an amount of Rs.51 lakh. Obviously, the estimated amount was brought down from Rs.1,10,00,000/- to Rs.51,00,000/- due to the decision to use Irul/Anjili in place of Teak wood, for the works. The fact is that, pending the application construction works, much in excess of the estimate, were carried out and in that regard, going by the pleadings, amounts in crores have been collected and expended. Taking note of the said situation, this Court suo motu impleaded the Renovation Committee of the temple as additional respondents 3 to 15. While making a statement that Rs.2.30 crores have been collected the stand of the Committee is that such an amount was utilised not only for renovation works, but also for conducting festivals and other rituals in the temple. It is also a fact that in between the Cochin Devaswom Board (for short 'CDB) has given an amount of Rs.29 lakhs for the renovation works. This is evident from paragraph 4 of the statement filed by the 5th respondent. Be that as it may, it appears that despite collecting amounts in crores and the lapse of more than a decade since the formation of Renovation Committee, the renovation works still remain uncompleted. It is also a matter of concern that despite the introduction of Section 76A in the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, (for short 'the Act') the Renovation Committee, which was formed in the year 2009, is still acting as the Temple Advisory Committee. It is also a matter of concern that despite the introduction of Section 76A in the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, (for short 'the Act') the Renovation Committee, which was formed in the year 2009, is still acting as the Temple Advisory Committee. True that in 2009, taking note of the existence of the Renovation Committee and also the Temple Advisory Committee in the temple and the difficulties faced owing to the existence of two committees, in the matter of smooth functioning including the works connected with renovation, this Court passed an order permitting the Renovation Committee to continue function and directed the Devaswom Authorities to take into possession the movable articles within the possession of the Temple Advisory Committee required for performing the rituals in the temple. Consequently, the Renovation Committee was also permitted to conduct festivals. Shortly stated, the Renovation Committee which was formed in the year 2009 slowly assumed the character of Temple Advisory Committee and besides performing the renovation works it continued to conduct the temple festivals, other rituals etc. Needless to say that in such circumstances, it continued to collect amounts from the Devotees. At this juncture we notice that the exact amount collected till date is not before this Court. So also, whether the entire amounts were collected only by utilising sealed coupons issued by the Board is also a matter of guess. When the matter is taken up for consideration, taking note of the situation this Court put a pointed question as to whether the Renovation Committee which had earlier executed an agreement dated 05.03.2011 and given an undertaking to complete the construction within two years could fulfill the undertaking? Based on the response, this Court put a further question as to what exactly is the stage of the construction/renovation works. No definite answer is forthcoming from the Committee as also CDB. What is available is the stage of construction as on 09.03.2020. Still, from the submission made by the learned counsel for the Renovation Committee as also the submission from the learned Standing Counsel for CDB, what we could gather is the renovation/construction works are still going on. How long it will continue? What is available is the stage of construction as on 09.03.2020. Still, from the submission made by the learned counsel for the Renovation Committee as also the submission from the learned Standing Counsel for CDB, what we could gather is the renovation/construction works are still going on. How long it will continue? We also put a question to the learned Standing Counsel as to whether taking note of the enormous amount collected and the period during which the committee has been functioning at any point of time, accounts of the committee were obtained and subjected to audit. The answer is in the negative. Thus, the unpleasant scenario is that, in the temple, during the pendency of this petition moved for getting sanction for a revised estimate of Rs.51 lakhs for the purpose of renovation works, even without appropriate approval and even without preparing and getting sanctioned estimates, works were undertaken and certain types of works are still undergoing. This kind of a situation cannot be permitted to continue in Devaswoms. Though the committee is accountable despite the lapse of more than a decade of its constitution the accounts of the committee werenot so far been made available for audit. That apart, the very purpose of which the committee was constituted in the year 2009 still remains unaccomplished. The matter of concern is that in between crores of rupees have been collected from the devotees, taking note of all such circumstances, we are of the view that an inquiry into the entire affairs with respect to the construction/renovation works, manner of expenditure etc may have to be done. But at the same time, taking note of the entire aspects, we have no hesitation to hold that the Renovation Committee, which was formed in the year 2009 cannot now be permitted to continue to function as the Temple Advisory Committee, indefinitely. We will consider the question whether the said committee could be permitted to continue to undertake the renovation works, later. To pass appropriate orders on these aspects, taking into account the aforesaid facts, additional respondents 3 to 15 are directed to file detailed affidavit, either jointly or independently, with respect to the entire aspects, viz., what exactly is the amount collected so far for the purpose of construction/renovation works and also for the purpose of conducting festivals. They will have to give details under each head separately. They will have to give details under each head separately. They shall also state what exactly is the amount spent for renovation works as also for conducting the festivals/rituals in the temple. They should also state whether such amounts were collected utilising the sealed coupons issued by the CDB. They should further state in what manner the amounts collected were kept and operated. In other words, whether it was deposited after opening any specific account therefor. We have no hesitation to hold that on all those aspects the CDB shall also file an affidavit. The CDB shall state as to what are the steps taken for obtaining the accounts of the committee to subject them to audit and what action was taken in case of failure of the committee to submit the account despite the request therefor. The CDB shall also state the minimum time required for formation of a Temple Advisory Committee in the temple under Section 76A of the Act. The affidavits, as directed, shall be filed by the respective parties in terms of this order within a period of three weeks." 8. On 26.10.2021, when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman submitted that vide Annexure A15, the said Special Commissioner has directed the Devaswom Officer, Pazhayannur to furnish a copy of the audit report of the Temple Renovation Committee and requested to offer its explanation/remarks to Annexure A14 Audit report. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, who is the Secretary of the Temple Renovation Committee, submitted that the explanation/remarks to the points noted in Annexure A14 Audit report will be filed within a week. 9. Along with an affidavit dated 25.09.2021 sworn to by the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board, Annexures A14 to A18 documents are placed on record. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that affidavit read thus; "3. It is submitted that by Annexure A13 order the Devaswom Board entrusted the Revenue Inspector of Thiruvilwamala Group to audit the accounts of the committee. After completing the audit, a report was submitted by the auditors on 15.9.2021. In this regard a true copy of the audit report is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A14. On receipt of the audit report, the Special Devaswom Commissioner has issued Order No. AS. After completing the audit, a report was submitted by the auditors on 15.9.2021. In this regard a true copy of the audit report is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A14. On receipt of the audit report, the Special Devaswom Commissioner has issued Order No. AS. 10426/17 dated 25.9.2021 directing the Devaswom Officer, Pazhayannur to furnish a copy of the audit report to the committee and requested them to offer their explanation/ remarks to the points noted by the audit wing. In this regard a true copy of the order dated 25.9.2021 passed by Special Devaswom Commissioner is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A15. 4. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court also directed the committee as well as the Devaswom to inform the stage of renovation works being carried out in the temple. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 24.8.2020 it was informed that the remaining works are item Nos. 4, 5, 14 and 16 of Annexure A2 revised estimate. As directed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 30.6.2021, the maramath wing of Devaswom Board conducted an inspection and submitted a report on 25.9.2021. In this regard true copy of the report No.H1-1846/09 dated 25.9.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A16. As regards item Nos. 14 and 16 mentioned in Annexure A16 report, the same has to be done just before the NaveekaranaKalasham. 5. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 30.6.2021 further directed the Devaswom Board to state the minimum time required for formation of Temple Advisory Committee in the temple under 76A of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. In obedience to the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court the Devaswom Board considered the matter and has passed Order No. A5. 10426/17 dated 26/07/2021. True copy of the said order is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A17. In AnnexureA17 order the Board has taken a decision to seek time till 31.12.2022 for forming a new Temple Advisory Committee after completing the entire maramath works and after doing the NaveekaranaKalasham. The decision was taken by the Board considering the fact that "NaveekaranaKalasham" has to be conducted after completing the entire maramath works. The committee was also directed to relay the damaged granite cut stone slabs inside the chuttumathil. The said work is highly essential considering the peculiar nature of the rituals in the temple. The decision was taken by the Board considering the fact that "NaveekaranaKalasham" has to be conducted after completing the entire maramath works. The committee was also directed to relay the damaged granite cut stone slabs inside the chuttumathil. The said work is highly essential considering the peculiar nature of the rituals in the temple. In this regard true copy of order on H1. 399/21 dated 17.9.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A18." 10. The 5 th respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated26.09.2021, producing therewith Annexures R5(d) and R5(e)documents. Paragraphs 4 to 10 of that affidavit read thus; "4. By order dated 30.06.2021, this Hon'ble Court has directed the respondents to file detailed affidavit with respect to what exactly is the amount collected so far for the purpose of construction / renovation works and also for the purpose of conducting festival. This Hon'ble Court further directed that they should also state what exactly is the amount spent for renovation works and also for conducting the festivals / rituals in the temple. There was a further direction to state whether such amounts were collected utilizing the sealed coupons issued by the CDB. It was also directed that additional respondents should further state in what manner the amounts collected were kept and operated. In compliance with the aforesaid specific directions of this Hon'ble Court this affidavit is being filed. 5. The details of the amounts collected so far for the purpose of construction/renovation works and also for conducting festivals is as under: a) The total amount collected is Rs. 3,30,80,245/-. b) For the purpose of renovation works the amount credited is Rs. 2,07,94,080/- c) For the purpose of conduct of the festivals, the amount credited is Rs.1,22,86,165/- d) The amount spent for renovation works is Rs. 2.05,44,340/-. The amount spent for conduct of festivals is Rs. 1,25,48,665/-, 6. This respondent states that all the amount specified hereinabove less the amounts which were digitally transferred by the devotees in favour of the respective bank accounts of the Committee have been collected utilizing the sealed coupons issued by the CDB. 7. The amounts collected for renovation work were kept and operated through the account maintained with Punjab National Bank, Pazhayannur Branch. 8. The amounts collected for conducting the festivals were kept and operated through the account maintained with Pazhayannur Farmers' Co-operative Bank Ltd. 9. 7. The amounts collected for renovation work were kept and operated through the account maintained with Punjab National Bank, Pazhayannur Branch. 8. The amounts collected for conducting the festivals were kept and operated through the account maintained with Pazhayannur Farmers' Co-operative Bank Ltd. 9. Pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 30.06.2021, the Special Devaswom Commissioner. Cochin Devaswom Board issued proceedings dated 04/08/2021 directing the President/Secretary of Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Kshethra Renovation Committee to produce the records enumerated therein for verification of the accounts of the Committee. A true copy of the proceedings issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board dated 04/08/2021 is produced herewith. marked Annexure R5(d). The Committee has complied with the directions contained in Annexure R5(d). 10. It is submitted that the petitioner in his capacity as the Secretary of the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple Renovation Committee, had approached this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C). No. 36458/2010 seeking three years time to generate the funds in addition to Rs. 50 lakhs agreed to be contributed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, required for carrying out the renovation works in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy Temple. The Writ Petition was ordered by this Hon'ble Court clarifying that those are not matters which, the Court should supervise. This Hon'ble Court held that the parties will make their application before the learned Ombudsman and the learned Ombudsman will look into the stand of either side and issue appropriate regulatory clarifications. This Hon'ble Court further held that the parties will stand bound to carry out such clarifications as may be issued by the learned Ombudsman regarding the time frame, expenditure and all other relevant aspects. This Hon'ble Court also clarified that having seen the materials, further approval from this Hon'ble Court is not necessary in the case and it would be open to the learned Ombudsman to issue clarifications on the question of approval also and that the Board would act upon that. A true copy of the said judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 36458/2010 is produced herewith, marked as Annexure R5(c). This respondent submits that the directions contained in Annexure R5(e) judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have become final and binding on the parties to the said proceedings." 11. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, Annexure A19 document is placed on record. This respondent submits that the directions contained in Annexure R5(e) judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have become final and binding on the parties to the said proceedings." 11. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, Annexure A19 document is placed on record. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of that application reads thus; "The above application is filed seeking sanction for Annexure A2 revised estimate for renovation work of Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple. Based on order dated 30.6.2021 an affidavit dated 25.9.2021 was filed by me. Along with the said affidavit, Annexure A14 audit report was also produced. By Annexure A15 order dated 25.9.2021 the Devaswom Officer, Pazhayannur Devaswom was directed to furnish a copy of the audit report to the 5th respondent committee and requested them to offer their explanation remarks to the audit report. The 5 th respondent committee submitted their reply to the audit objections and thereafter the matter was placed before the Board and the Board has issued Order No. A5. 10426/2017 dated 25.6.2022. In this regard a true copy of Order No. A5. 10426/2017 dated 25.6.2022 issued by the applicant is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A19. It is highly necessary in the interest of justice that the aforesaid document be accepted on file. If the document is not accepted on file, this deponent will be put to serious hardship and loss." 12. Today, when this DBP is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court an Office Memorandum dated 31.01.2023, which reads thus; 13. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the applicant, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit, the learned counsel for the additional 5 th respondent, who is the Secretary of the additional 2 nd respondent Temple Renovation Committee of Pazhayannur Bhagavathi Temple, and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman. 14. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. 14. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in subsection (1), the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. 15. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by the Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes. As per sub-section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, out of the funds under their control, set apart such sum as they deem fit for the educational uplift, cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community, after providing adequately for the purposes of the institutions which have to be met from the said fund. 16. 16. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board.As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees. 17. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1 st day of July, 1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 74 of the Act deals with superintendence and control by the Board. As per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 18. In Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 1975 KLT 55 ] a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. 19. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ] , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. 19. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ] , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs 21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 20. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/ar- chakas/shebaits/employees. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/ar- chakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons en- trusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misap- propriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Govern- ment, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misap-propriation. 21. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [ (2013) 3 KLT 132 ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] the Apex Court em- phasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institu- tions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent juris- diction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercis- ing the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devo- tees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 22. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devo- tees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 22. In Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411] , in the context of Sabarimala Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the Act, under Chengannur Group, this Court held that, in view of the provisions under the Act and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom,. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also festivals in the temple according to its usage. Position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held by this Court in Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55] . Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. The Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom are duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. Any such wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. Since the deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 23. Since the deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 23. In Arjunan T.N. v. President, Temple Advisory Committee and others [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a DBP registered on the basis of TDB Report No.39 of 2011 of the learned Ombudsman on a complaint made by the devotees of Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple, which is a temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board relating to purchase of 20 cents of land in front of that temple, utilising the money collected from the devotees by the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple. The Tantri of the temple inaugurated the collection scheme. One Somanathan, who was dealing with the affairs of the Temple Advisory Committee, and Madhusoodhanan, registered a Trust in the name Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust and the land was purchased in the name of that Trust utilising the funds collected from the devotees. The registration of the Trust was more than two months after the collection of funds and the property was got conveyed in favour of Madhusoodhanan, Somanathan and Raveendran on behalf of that Trust. The Division Bench held that the acquisition on behalf of Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust is, obviously, in the form of a dedication to the deity of the temple concerned and such dedication has been made utilising the funds collected from the public at large, that too, by an entity acting on behalf of the people, who were prepared to make such dedication. For such collection, receipts have been issued by the Convenor of the Land Endowment Scheme, a conglomeration of well minded devotees. It has to be presumed that the benefit of such collection is for the purpose of the deity. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the extent of 20 cents of land covered by document No.6540/2006 is an item of property which stands dedicated in favour of the deity and the purchase of the land utilising the amounts was only for the sake of; in favour of; and, in the course of dedication to, the deity. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the extent of 20 cents of land covered by document No.6540/2006 is an item of property which stands dedicated in favour of the deity and the purchase of the land utilising the amounts was only for the sake of; in favour of; and, in the course of dedication to, the deity. The Travancore Devaswom Board holds all the properties of the temples under its control, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. Therefore, the Division Bench declared that the land covered by the aforesaid document and all structures standing thereon vest absolutely in the deity of Kaippallikkavu Bhagavathi Temple and those properties can only be managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Any person occupying such property, including Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust, shall cease to occupy that parcel and it will be exclusively under the management and control of the Travancore Devaswom Board on behalf of the deity. 24. In Arjunan T.N. [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] , in the context of the provisions contained in the Rules (bye-laws) regarding formation of Temple Advisory Committees in Temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board, the Division Bench held that, in view of the prohibitions contained in Clauses 9, 12 and 18 of the said Rules, any collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee in connection with the conduct of temple festival or construction or repair or renovation work in the temple can only be made with the prior approval of the Travancore Devaswom Board, against sealed coupons issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee has to cause the accounts relating to the collection of funds, income and expenditure audited, which shall be produced before the authorities in the Board before 30 th April of every year. In view of the provisions contained in Clause 12 of the Rules, in the event of any specific financial irregularities in the activities of the Temple Advisory Committee, the Devaswom Commissioner shall have the absolute power to remove that Committee. Clause 18 of the Rules prohibits collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee in connection with any ceremonies in the temples by placing kanikkavanchies or hundis. Clause 18 of the Rules prohibits collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee in connection with any ceremonies in the temples by placing kanikkavanchies or hundis. No receipts without the seal of the Assistant Commissioner shall be used for collecting funds, when the Board has granted permission for collection of funds at the initiative of the Temple Advisory Committee. 25. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Arjunan T.N. [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] , in the case of Temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board, the collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee, based on the approval granted by the Board, against receipts with the seal of the Assistant Commissioner, in connection with the conduct of temple festival or for construction, repair or renovation work in the temple, is collection of money in the name of the deity. The purpose of such collection is for the benefit of the deity. Therefore, the Board has to ensure that the amounts collected by the Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under its management in connection with the conduct of temple festival or for construction, repair or renovation work in the temple, which are credited into the account of the Advisory Committee, are transferred to the Devaswom fund temporarily. Thereafter, adopting the method of issuing payment cheques from the Devaswom fund, on the basis of payment bills prepared by the Maramath wing of the Board, payments can be released to the contractor. If such a procedure is adopted, the supervision of the Maramath wing of the Board will be more effective and the work files can be kept in the Maramath wing, which can be subjected to regular audit by the State Audit Department, annually. 26. The law laid down by this Court in Arjunan T.N. [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] has application with equal force in the case of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board. Therefore, it is for the Cochin Devaswom Board to take an appropriate decision to adopt the same procedure, with appropriate modifications, if found necessary, in the case of the Temple Advisory Committees in the Temples under its management. Therefore, it is for the Cochin Devaswom Board to take an appropriate decision to adopt the same procedure, with appropriate modifications, if found necessary, in the case of the Temple Advisory Committees in the Temples under its management. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 27. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to direct the internal audit wing of the Cochin Devaswom Board to transmit the entire files relating to the renovation work in question to the 1 st respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit, for statutory audit. The 1 st respondent shall complete the statutory audit, with notice to the concerned Devaswom Officer and also the Secretary of the additional 2 nd respondent Temple Renovation Committee, as well as the office bearers/members of the said Committee against whom there are allegations. After completing the statutory audit, the report of the 1 st respondent Senior Deputy Director shall be filed before this Court, which shall be numbered as DBAR and listed before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters. 28. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board that a Temple Advisory Committee has already been constituted in Pazhayannur Bhagavathi Temple, vide order dated 30.06.2021 of the Devaswom Commissioner and the submission of the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, who is the Secretary of the Temple Renovation Committee, that the office bearers and members of that Committee will co- operate with the statutory audit by the 1 st respondent Senior Deputy Director, are recorded. With the above directions, this DBP is disposed of.