ORDER : (Anil K. Narendran, J.) This DBP is registered based on TDB Report No.140 of 2014 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.225 of 2014 made by the Temple Advisory Committee of Nettorkkottu Bhagavathi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The subject matter of that complaint is the delay in completion of the construction of an auditorium, the construction of which was started as early as in the year 2009, based on a decision taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board on 07.08.2008. The administrative sanction for the construction of the ground floor of the building was accorded at an estimate cost of Rs.63 lakhs. The administrative sanction for the construction of the first floor was granted by the Devaswom Board on 10.02.2010, at an estimate cost of Rs.96,90,000/-. Both these works were approved by this Court in different Maramath petitions and the works were also completed. An another sum of Rs.5 lakhs was spent for plumbing work. However, the auditorium could not be inaugurated, as interior works including ceiling, arrangement for sound proofing echo system and fire safety measures have not been undertaken. The electrical work would be done only along with these works, as wiring has to done before placing false ceiling. Since large amounts have already been spent and to get proper income from the auditorium, it was pointed out that air conditioning of the hall is also required, which will be part of the electrical work. Chairs also have to be purchased. Unless and until these works are also completed, the investment of Rs.1,64,90,000/- will be a waste and no returns could be obtained from such investments. 2. On 13.10.2014, when this report came up for consideration, this Court by a detailed order, directed the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Chief Engineer and the concerned Executive Engineer to be present in Court on27.10.2014 at 10.15 a.m. Paragraph 1 of the said order reads thus; ''The report dated 11.09.2014 submitted by the learned Ombudsman appointed by this Court reveals a very sorry state of affairs in the matter of construction of an auditorium in the premises of Nettorkottu Devaswom in Muvattupuzha. The work of the auditorium commenced in the year 2009. Initially administrative sanction for construction of the ground floor was accorded by the Travancore Devaswom Board at an estimated cost of Rs.63,00,000/-. The work of the auditorium commenced in the year 2009. Initially administrative sanction for construction of the ground floor was accorded by the Travancore Devaswom Board at an estimated cost of Rs.63,00,000/-. Later, construction of the first floor was also sanctioned at an estimated cost of Rs.96,90,000/-. Both the works were approved by this Court and the works were completed. Still later, plumbing work was also completed. But till date the auditorium has not been commissioned. It is stated that fire safety measures have not been installed and that sound proofing and false ceiling works have also not been done. The learned Ombudsman has also reported that though the learned Ombudsman had sent notice to the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, there was no representation or reply when the complaint was taken up on 29.07.2014, 20.08.2014 and 03.09.2014. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the Secretary/Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board and the Engineer in charge of the construction should be present in this Court on the next posting date to explain the reason why even five years after the commencement of the construction, the auditorium has not been commissioned. We also deem it appropriate to direct them to file separate statements showing the amounts already spent on the auditorium. The said officers shall also state whether they have any idea about the further expenditure required to commission the auditorium and whether an estimate in that regard has been prepared.'' 3. The order dated 13.10.2014 was followed by an order dated 27.10.2014, whereby, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the building in question along with an expert engineer for the purpose of ascertaining whether the estimate prepared for the work is in order, whether the work has been carried out in accordance with the specification stipulated by the Board and also to prepare a fair estimate of the expenditure likely to be involved to complete the construction and to put the auditorium to profitable use. The said order reads thus; ''When this petition came up before us on 13.10.2014, taking note the fact that the construction of an auditorium which commenced in year 2009 has not so far been completed, we directed the Secretary/Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board and the Engineer in charge of the construction to be present in person today to explain the reason why even five years after the commencement of the construction, the auditorium has not been commissioned. We also directed them to file separate statements showing the amounts already stent on the auditorium and the further expenditure required to complete the construction and to commission the auditorium. 2. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Kottayam Division has filed a statement dated 13.10.2014. He is also present in person. Sri.P.R.Balachandran Nair, Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a statement dated 26.10.2014 and he is also present in person. The Chief Engineer has filed a statement dated 25.10.2014, but he is not present in person on account of previous commitments. 3. The statements disclose that though the permission of this Court was sought and obtained for constructing the ground floor of the auditorium at an estimated cost of Rs.68,00,000/-, the work was tendered to Sri.M.C.Eldho at 45% above the sanctioned estimate. A copy of this Court's order dated 04.12.2008 in D.B.A.No.105 of 2008 granting permission to construct the ground floor of the auditorium is not produced. It is also not known whether the work was awarded to Sri.M.C.Eldho at 45% above the estimate rate with the sanction of this Court. The statements also disclose that later the Board decided to construct the first floor at an estimated cost of Rs.96,90,000/- and for the said construction also, the permission of this Court was sought and obtained in D.B.A.No.21 of 2010, and, the said work was awarded 58% above the estimate rate to Sri.M.C.Eldho. The statements disclose that notwithstanding the fact that more than Rs.3 crores has been spent, the construction of the auditorium has not been completed and that a further sum of Rs.2.60 crores is required to complete the work. On a perusal of the statements filed by the Executive Engineer and others we are of the opinion that further construction will involve expenditure over and above the said estimate, since the practice prevalent in the Board is to award the work at a higher rate. On a perusal of the statements filed by the Executive Engineer and others we are of the opinion that further construction will involve expenditure over and above the said estimate, since the practice prevalent in the Board is to award the work at a higher rate. From the materials on record we are satisfied that a thorough probe into the construction of the auditorium in the lands belonging to Nettorkkottukavu Bhagavathi Temple should be conducted. The work started at the instance of Muvattupuzha Municipality which resolved on 16.6.2008 to request the Travancore Devaswom Board to construct a shopping complex and an auditorium in the lands belonging to Nettorkkottukavu Devaswom. The reason stated was that Muvattupuzha is fast developing and it lacks an auditorium. The Board responded promptly by deciding to construct the ground floor of an auditorium at an estimated cost of Rs.68,00,000/- on 07.08.2008, within 52 days thereafter. Officers of the Board or the members of the Board do not appear to have taken note of the fact that an incomplete building would not fetch any income and that the work has been pending for the past more than five years. Even now one is not certain as to whether by spending a further sum of Rs.2.60 crores, as stated by the officers of the Board, the construction of the work can be completed or whether anyone will come forward to complete the work at the estimated cost or whether, as in the past, the work will be tendered at a higher rate. In such circumstances we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board to file a list of members of the Board who were in office during the period from 07.08.2008 till date. The Secretary of the Board shall also file a list of officers/employees who were/are in service and were/are directly concerned with the work in question including the officers who were concerned with the preparation of the estimates and the supervision of the work. The Secretary of the Board shall also file a list of officers/employees who were/are in service and were/are directly concerned with the work in question including the officers who were concerned with the preparation of the estimates and the supervision of the work. We also deem it appropriate to implead the Muvattupuzha Municipality and the contractor to whom the work was awarded and to further direct the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board to produce the entire files for scrutiny before the Hon'ble Ombudsman appointed by this Court within one week from today, for the purpose of enabling the Advocate Commissioner, whom we propose to appoint, to inspect the incomplete building with the aid of an expert Engineer of the Commissioner's choice and to submit a report to this Court as to whether the estimates prepared for the work were in order, whether the work has been carried out in accordance with the tender specifications stipulated by the Board and also to prepare a fair estimate of the expenditure likely to be involved to complete the construction of the auditorium and to commission it. We accordingly implead the Muvattupuzha Municipality represented by its Secretary, Muvattupuzha P.O. Ernakulam District, as the additional second respondent and the contractor Sri.M.C.Eldho, Molekudiyil House, Nellad P.O., Mudavur (Via.), Muvattupuzha, as the additional third respondent. We also appoint Sri.A.S.P.Kurup, Advocate practicing in this Court, as Advocate Commissioner, to inspect the building in question along with an expert Engineer for the purpose of ascertaining whether the estimates prepared for the work were in order, whether the work has been carried out in accordance with the specifications stipulated by the Board and also prepare a fair estimate of the expenditure likely to be involved to complete the construction and to put the auditorium to profitable use. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board shall, for the purpose of enabling the Advocate Commissioner to carry out the inspection, produce the relevant files for scrutiny before the Hon'ble Ombudsman appointed by this Court within two weeks from today. It will be open to the Advocate Commissioner and the expert Engineer, whom he chooses, to go through the files in the office of the Hon'ble Ombudsman for the purpose of conducting the inspection. The Advocate Commissioner shall, after inspection, submit a report to this Court within four weeks from today. It will be open to the Advocate Commissioner and the expert Engineer, whom he chooses, to go through the files in the office of the Hon'ble Ombudsman for the purpose of conducting the inspection. The Advocate Commissioner shall, after inspection, submit a report to this Court within four weeks from today. The Board shall pay to the learned Advocate Commissioner the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards remuneration and to meet the expenses of the expert. In the event of this Court finding that the work in question was undertaken without a proper estimate being prepared, the said amount will be liable to be recouped from the officers concerned in the preparation of the estimate and in execution of the work. The remuneration shall be paid within a week from today directly to the Advocate Commissioner. Registry to issue notice by special messenger to additional respondents 2 and3 at the expense of the Travancore Devaswom Board.'' 4. The order dated 27.10.2014 was followed by an order dated 14.10.2015, which reads thus; ''Pursuant to the earlier orders, the Executive Engineer, Kottayam division is present with the original files. On the basis of the files, he has answered our queries in relation to the contract. The initial PAC was fixed at Rs.63,00,000/- on the basis of 2008 schedule. The additional items for which sanction is now sought for are valued at Rs.2.75 crores, on the basis of 2012 schedule of rates. The concept of additional work in excess quantity in works contract of this nature is not a new phenomenon. There is abundant literature both in the realm of engineering and also law as to how additional items and excess quantities will have to be worked out and as to the reasonable yardstick which could be applied in construction contracts which include additional items and excess quantities. One issue that we see is, the Board had in its wisdom conceived the structure and given out a contract in 2008. That is the contract which was given for Rs.63,00,000/- PAC and 45% excess was the awarded amount. This means that the total amount for that structure alone had come to more than Rs.83,00,000/-. The uphold revision of rates from 2008 to 2012 is stated to be around 50%. That is the contract which was given for Rs.63,00,000/- PAC and 45% excess was the awarded amount. This means that the total amount for that structure alone had come to more than Rs.83,00,000/-. The uphold revision of rates from 2008 to 2012 is stated to be around 50%. If that were so, the estimated amount for the additional items which is now shown as Rs.2.75 crores would have been valued only at 1½ of it in 2008. What is surprising is that the additional items are nothing but materials required for air conditioning and furnishing the auditorium and also to provide various other systems for fire fighting etc. 2. We wonder for ourselves as to whether if the contract was given in one go after fixing a total PAC in 2008, the work would have been awarded in the manner in which it has been done now. Even if it were to be taken that the Board had attempted to act prudently in the financial aspect, we are sure that it can miserably take. The total expenditure incurred for the construction of the building less the additional items which are now going to be carried out when evaluated taking into consideration the value of the additional items the arithmetical calculations in that regard would intrigue any accountant or engineer who would definitely have to ultimately say that the Board would have stood to gain from spending the huge amounts which it now has to, if the works were awarded as a single unit on the basis of the 2008 schedule. 3. We are told that the extra items now sought to be done are yet to be tendered and that the contractor who has done the work so far was awarded only the civil work for the building. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we grant permission to the Board to carry out the works of the extra items which are now stated to be remaining and ensure that the auditorium is fully operational within a period of six months. The learned Commissioner will continue to report to this Court the progress of the work. Such report may be filed before the learned Ombudsman at the first instance. The learned Commissioner will continue to report to this Court the progress of the work. Such report may be filed before the learned Ombudsman at the first instance. We refer this matter back to the learned Ombudsman to hear the Board and the learned Commissioner and also to consider whether guidelines could be issued to revamp and if necessary, re- structure the Board's process of awarding such emoluments.'' 5. Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 14.10.2015, the learned Ombudsman has filed TDB Report No.3 of 2017. The said report reads thus; "When the above DBP came up for consideration before the Honourable High Court on 14.10.2015, the Honourable High Court referred the matter back to the Ombudsman to hear the Board and the learned Advocate Commissioner and also to consider whether guidelines could be issued to revamp and if necessary, restructure the Board's process of awarding such emoluments. 2. The matter related to estimate sanction for the construction of auditorium in Nettoorkottu Kavu Devaswom. As a result of some additional huge expenditure required for completing the project, it became necessary to file sanction petition. The Honourable High Court noticed that the original estimate was prepared in 2008 for Rs.63 lakhs, but the additional items for which sanction was sought for were valued at Rs.2.75 Crores on the basis of 2012 Schedule of Rates. It noticed that the additional items are nothing but materials required for air conditioning and furnishing the auditorium and to provide other systems, fire fighting etc. The Honourable High Court in paragraph 2 of the Order expressed that if the contract was given in one go in 2008 itself, it would have been awarded in the manner in which it has been done now and the Board would have stood to gain from spending huge amounts. However, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of the case, permission was granted to the Board for the extra works to be carried out to make the auditorium operational. The learned Advocate Commissioner was directed to file reports on the progress of the work. Such reports have to be filed before the Ombudsman at the first instance. It is in that context, that the matter was required to be considered by this Office. 3. Learned Advocate Commissioner has filed fourth interim report dated 27.04.2016. The learned Advocate Commissioner was directed to file reports on the progress of the work. Such reports have to be filed before the Ombudsman at the first instance. It is in that context, that the matter was required to be considered by this Office. 3. Learned Advocate Commissioner has filed fourth interim report dated 27.04.2016. A Report was submitted by the Ombudsman on the third interim report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Orders have already been passed by the Honourable High Court on the said report. 4. In the fourth interim report, certain suggestions are made in paragraph 10 of the same for consideration for formulating guidelines in the matter of tendering the works relating to the temple. Copies of the same was served on the Executive Engineer, TDB, Kottayam as also the Kerala State Audit Department, TDB Audit enabling them to file their remarks or suggestions, if any, vide my proceedings dated 27.04.2016. After successive postings of the case, the Travancore Devaswom Board made a suggestion by their letter dated 31.05.2016 that the present limit of Rs.10 lakhs for sanction of maramath works from the Honourable High Court be increased to Rs.30,00,000/- and to allow fifteen per cent excess. It is also stated that the Executive Engineer has been authorised to file a report in the matter. 5. As a matter of fact, the Board filed DBA.No.16 of 2016 and pursuant to the Order passed by the Honourable High Court referring the same to me, I have already filed a report as TDBR. No. 140 of 2016 in DBA.No. 16 of 2016 and pending consideration before the Honourable High Court regarding the enhancement of the ceiling for obtaining sanction from the Honourable High Court. 6. The Executive Engineer had filed a draft guidelines, copy of which is marked as Annexure A. Actually, the guidelines were submitted to the Chief Engineer and in my proceedings dated 26.09.2016 the Board was informed that in the absence of any separate guidelines filed by the Board, the draft guidelines submitted by the Executive Engineer will be accepted as one approved by the Board and since no separate remarks were filed, the same was taken as guidelines submitted by the Board. Copy of the proceedings of this Office dated 26.09.2016 is marked as Annexure B. Separate remarks were filed by the Audit before the Honourable High Court with copy to this office. Copy of the proceedings of this Office dated 26.09.2016 is marked as Annexure B. Separate remarks were filed by the Audit before the Honourable High Court with copy to this office. Thereafter, the matter was posted on different dates for discussion and a report is submitted on the various suggestions made by the Advocate Commissioner as follows: Para 10(i) of the Report: The Advocate Commissioner points out that special rates are to be prepared for temple works taking into account the actual price of the materials, labour charges etc. and the rates are to be prepared by an expert technical team knowing about the special nature of the temple work and subject to revision every year. The rate applicable to PWD work in general has to be abandoned for such temple work. The Audit in their remarks stated that the Travancore Devaswom Board has adopted Delhi Schedule of Rates effective from 1.4.2016 and it is learnt that the Travancore Devaswom Board has already prepared special rates for temple and temple related works, not included in the DSR and the same is under consideration of the Chief Engineer of the Board. Further, the Board also provides reasonable time for temple related work in the general schedule having due regard to the fact that limited working hours alone are available in the temple. Hence they suggest that the present prevailing practice is more acceptable and continued. In the draft guidelines submitted by the Executive Engineer, it is admitted that DSR rates and Rules of Kerala PWD are followed for maramath works in the Travancore Devaswom Board. The temple works are to be categorised in two types, namely, renovation of Sreekovil, Nalambalam, Balikkalpura, Namaskaramandapam, Thidappilly, Well, Elamathil, Subshrines in the Sreekovil in the First Category and the general works outside the Chuttambalam, namely construction of new building, Nadapandal, Anakottil, Pradakshinavazhi, etc. in the Second Category. The main wood used for the maramath arfe Anjili and teak wood, MP roofing, Ashlar stones, country bricks, etc. which are double the present schedule of rates. Skilled labourers for the temple works are rear and the rates are also exorbitant besides, normal working hours are not available. Hence it is suggested to implement special rates for the works mentioned in the First Category taking into account short working time. which are double the present schedule of rates. Skilled labourers for the temple works are rear and the rates are also exorbitant besides, normal working hours are not available. Hence it is suggested to implement special rates for the works mentioned in the First Category taking into account short working time. Suggestions: After considering the proposal as aforesaid, it is suggested that now that the Delhi Rates are adopted for the Devaswom, the works included in the First Category mentioned by the Executive Engineer for special rates, is a matter for consideration by the Board based on report to be submitted by the Chief Engineer as pointed out by the Audit remarks. Hence let that process be continued and the Board would consider the incorporation of special rates for special items of work, not included in the Delhi Rates. Para 10(ii) of the Report: In the report of the Advocate Commissioner under para 10(ii), the suggestion is to treat the construction including Dwajam to be treated as separate category other than civil construction like Sadyalayam, compound wall etc. In view of the suggestions in paragraph 10(i), this is redundant. Para 10(iii) of the Report: Estimate once preared takes a longer time for administrative sanction and contract sanction. This has to be limited to 30 days time for final sanction after submission of the estimate. Office procedure may be revamped. Once an estimate is prepared by the Executive Engineer and received by the Chief Engineer, time limit may be presribed for completing examination and place it before the Board to enable the Board to take a decision. The Executive Engineer points out in his draft that if the contract sanction is not accorded within six months, the contractor can step back from the contract. Because of the office procedure, more than six months is taken for getting approval. The suggestion is that the present powers of the Board and officials for granting administrative sanction of the contract and the Board can approach the Honourable High Court for necessary variation in the order regarding ceiling. The audit agrees with the suggestion made by the Advocate Commissioner for fixing the time limit for sanction. The suggestion is that the present powers of the Board and officials for granting administrative sanction of the contract and the Board can approach the Honourable High Court for necessary variation in the order regarding ceiling. The audit agrees with the suggestion made by the Advocate Commissioner for fixing the time limit for sanction. Suggestion: It is suggested that once an estimate is prepared and submitted, the Chief Engineer has to consider and take a decision within three weeks and submitted to the Board for consideration and the Board to take a decision within a period of one month thereafter. There should be an accountability for the delay unless occasion due to any special circumstances to be offered by the concerned official. Para 10(iv) of the Report: It is pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner that there are three stages of negotiation after inviting the tender before the work is awarded. Hence it is suggested that all these negotiations must be completed within a period of 45 days to avoid claim for enhancement. The audit has pointed out that for completing all the formalities, a time limit of 45 days be fixed from the date of selection of the successful bidder. Suggestion: Once a successful bidder is selected, negotiation formalities are to be completed as far as possible within a period of 45 days. Para 10(v) of the Report: There are large number of Devaswom properties in neglected condition. They have to be demolished and protected over by fencing with barbed wire and constructing a compound wall. Delay will result in unnecessary encroachment. Audit agrees with the suggestion. It is said that the encroachment of Devaswom land is brought to the notice of the Honourable High Court in various Audit Reports, but the Devaswom authorities have taken a lookwarm attitude. Suggestion: It is a fact that the Special Tahsildar through various reports has pointed out that after putting the boundary stones after surveying the land, unless emergent steps are taken to protect the land, future encroachment on the same land cannot be prevented. In this regard I have filed a report as TDBR.No.111 of 2016 after considering a complaint filed before this Office. In this regard I have filed a report as TDBR.No.111 of 2016 after considering a complaint filed before this Office. The suggestion is to constitute a team by the Devaswom authorities to look into all trespass cases and to give instructions to the Executive Engineer concerned to take measures for protecting the land by fencing the area at the first instance once survey is completed and report is received from the Special Tahsildar This may be considered. Para 10(vi) of the Report: Lack of supervision for works above Rs. 1 crore on the part of the higher officials of the Maramath Department It is pointed out that the work is supervised by Supervisors who are overburdened to visit various places of construction. This results in dilution of the work. Physical supervision by the Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer including Chief Engineer be insisted upon where the works involves more than Rs. 1 crore. The Audit has accepted the suggestion as the present system of supervision is not upto the mark. Suggestion: In marmath works involving above Rs.1 crore, the Chief Engineer must visit the construction site as far as possible, at least once in six weeks/two months and the Executive Engineer at least twice in a month. A visiting book should be kept at the site to note the date and time of inspection by the concerned officer. Para 10(vii) of the report: It is suggested that ITI Certificate holders' serivices can be used by the Travancore Devaswom Board paying stipend allowance of Rs.5,000/-. This will solve the problem of dearth for supervisory staff Audit suggested to limit the above suggestion only for works above estimated rate of Rs.5 lakhs. Suggestion: Recruiting apprentices to supervise the work by paying a paltry amount will not be advisable as it may lead to corruption. Further, there are restrictions for recruitment of employees except through procedure established by law. Instead, the strict supervision by the Assistant Engineer or by Junior Engineer, more often will ensure the quality of the work. The Temple Advisory Committee and the Devaswom Officer may keep a vigil of the work so that the progress of the work and the quality will be under the vigil of the public. Para 10(ix) of the report: E-tender adopted by the Travancore Devaswom Board is stated to be effective for the general civil work. The Temple Advisory Committee and the Devaswom Officer may keep a vigil of the work so that the progress of the work and the quality will be under the vigil of the public. Para 10(ix) of the report: E-tender adopted by the Travancore Devaswom Board is stated to be effective for the general civil work. However, it will not be practical for renovation work of the Sreekovil, Namaskaramandapam etc. which are governed by the principles of "Vasthu" and tradition. Since these works are to be done by traditional families who are not familiar with the E-tender system, the availability of such experts should be ensured by traditional way of tendering. The Audit suggests to empanel the traditional skilled workers so that whenever there is special works, they can be intimated of the tender and they can apply by registered post so that both the skilled workers can also be participated in the tender. Suggestion: Instead of giving away E-tender system, the suggestion put- forth by the Audit is more acceptable while E-tenders can be continued to be followed, simultaneously traditionally skilled workers may be emapanelled and whenever works are ready, intimation may be given to the empanelled persons enabling them to apply by registered post as well. Para 10(x) of the report: Essential parts of a temple are Sreekovil, Namaskara Mandapam, Balikkalpura, Dwajam, Gopuram, Lake and Alankara Gopuram at the main road entrance. With respect to Gopuram, it is suggested that the same can be constructed by the Board by sharing the expense at 50:50 between the Temple Advisory Committee and the Board. Attractive kanikkanvanchi can also be installed on the road side for offering by the public. The Audit has agreed with the suggestion to share the expenditure on 50:50 basis by the Temple Advisory Committee and the Devaswom. Since it is an ornamental work, unless substantial amount is contributed by the Temple Advisory Committee, it will be a heavy burden on the Devaswom fund. The Executive Engineer has also agreed with the suggestion to share the expenditure by the Committee. He has also agreed to the suggestion to have more number of Kanikkavanchi at prime locations. Suggestion: The construction of Alankara Gopuram as far as possible should be taken up and given priority only if at least 50% of the estimated cost is contributed by the Temple Advisory Committee for the time being. He has also agreed to the suggestion to have more number of Kanikkavanchi at prime locations. Suggestion: The construction of Alankara Gopuram as far as possible should be taken up and given priority only if at least 50% of the estimated cost is contributed by the Temple Advisory Committee for the time being. As regards the suggestion for installation of Kanikkavanchi in the road, it is considered not advisable, since there is security problem and as part of the redeployment, the staff strength of security staff is proposed to be reduced. Keeping of more number of Kanikkavanchies will cause to be extra-burdened on the security staff to prevent theft. Hence attractive vanchies can be kept at the important locations within the temple after selecting the locateion by the temple authorities. Para 10(xi) of the report: Construction of Sadyalayam: Before making construction of Sadyalayam, feasibility report has to be prepared as essential, as there are restrictions regarding the functions to be conducted and the nature of the food to be supplied which is likely to lesser the income. Hence the suggestion is to have Sadyalayam outside the temple for making good use of the same. It is pointed out by the Audit that many of the Sadyalayams of Travancore Devaswom Board have resulted in sheer waste because of the lack of road accessibility, etc. Suggestion: No hard and fast rule can be made in this regard. Constructing a Sadyalayam totally in distant place in the temple may not be an encourging suggestion as far as the devotees are concerned for conducting Annadanam etc. However, if there are available land outside the premises of the temple for construction of Kalyanamandapam etc. that is to be taken separately depending upon the availability of fund, space, feasibility, etc. However, whenever an Annadanamandapam, Kalyanamandapam etc. for which an estimate has to be prepared, a feasibility report has to be submitted. As of now, whenever maramath petitions are considered, I use to insist for detailed statements regarding its feasibility which can be made compulsory so that these aspects can be considered while granting sanction by the Honourable High Court. Para 10(xii) of the report: Improvements to be made to the temple ponds under the Kavumkulam Renovation Programme by the Government: Suggestion: Even now, many of the temple ponds are included in such schemes at the instance of the Local MLA. Para 10(xii) of the report: Improvements to be made to the temple ponds under the Kavumkulam Renovation Programme by the Government: Suggestion: Even now, many of the temple ponds are included in such schemes at the instance of the Local MLA. No specific direction is felt necessary in this regard. Para 10(xiii) of the report: This again a repetition regarding the applicability of the PWD rates. However, the suggestion is to increase the limit of the various sanctioning authorities. For the Executive Engineer, sanctioning limit is Rs.2 lakhs to be increased to Rs.3 lakhs, Chief Engineer from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs and the Devaswom Board from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs. Suggestion: As regards the sanctioning limit is concerned, it is now prescribed by the orders passed by the Honourable High Court. The limit of the Board is sought to be increased on which the report is pending consideration as TDBR. No.140 of 2016 in DBA.No.16 of 2016. The Honourable High Court may consider whether the limit prescribed for the Officers could also be increased proportionately, in case that will help reducing the delay in completing the formalities relating to the tender of small works and for administrative sanction. The suggestion of the Advocate Commissioner is nominal and hence can be considered. 7. There are some other points made mention of in the report of the Advocate Commissioner in paragraphs 8 and 9. They are dealt with as hereunder: (i) Pavement of granite stones in the Pradakshina Vazhi: It can be considered as regards the major temples having substantial income, but no hard and fast rule can be made in this regard. The cost of vitrified tiles will be cheaper compared to granite/ashlar stones. Hence, in small temples, it cannot be insisted to pave granite stones. (ii) Regarding preservation of carvings/sculptures, etc.: The survey of the temples where there are such carving has to be first ascertained. The concerned Executive Engineer can prepare necessary estimate as and when there is a demand by the Temple Advisory Committee and the public of the locality so that the cost incurred can be contributed by the devotees. (iii) Regarding the disposal of the materials available after demolishing the old buildings: While preparing maramath petition, an estimate has to be taken regarding the availability of the materials and the cost. (iii) Regarding the disposal of the materials available after demolishing the old buildings: While preparing maramath petition, an estimate has to be taken regarding the availability of the materials and the cost. While inviting the tenders, these materials also have to be tendered and the amount received can be utilised for renovation work. For the disposal of the materials as aforesaid, the limit is only Rs. 10,000/- for the Chief Engineer. As regards the Executive Engineer, it is Rs.5,000/-. This creates unnecessary delay in disposal of the materials collected from the dismantled buildings and got ruined. In order that these materials are disposed of without incurring loss to the Devaswom, the suggestion is to increase the limit fixed for the Chief Engineer from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and for the Executive Engineer from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.Appropriate Orders may be passed." 6. By the order dated 10.01.2017, after considering the fifth interim report dated 03.01.2017 of the learned Advocate Commissioner, the Temple Advisory Committee was directed to carry out the process of extending the utility of Kalyanamandapam for the time being, pending consideration of the matter. 7. On 02.04.2018, when this DBP came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; "Heard the matter in detail. With regard to the balance work completed by the 4th respondent contractor, a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in connection with the affairs of the Nettorkottukavu Temple, various interim orders came to be passed by this Court on different dates. On the last occasion, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the electrical connection could not be given to the main line, for want of numbering the building and that the lapse in this regard was only on the part of the Devaswom or the civil contractor. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent electrical contractor submits that the work completed by the 4th respondent was assessed and the bill submitted was sanctioned as per Ext.R4(d) dated21.07.2017, for a total sum of Rs.41,22,597.24 including 5%OH charges. The learned counsel submits that, based on the interim orders passed by this Court, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- has been released and the balance amount payable is Rs.11,22,597.24/-. This amount is stated as deposited by the Devaswom in the Dhanalakshmi Bank, Kottayam Branch. 2. The learned counsel submits that, based on the interim orders passed by this Court, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- has been released and the balance amount payable is Rs.11,22,597.24/-. This amount is stated as deposited by the Devaswom in the Dhanalakshmi Bank, Kottayam Branch. 2. The learned counsel further submits that, in connection with the installation of Transformer, a further sum of Rs.40,00,000/- is due, to be cleared by the Devaswom. The petitioner has been required to produce the M-book for clearing the said amount, but, in fact, the M-book is now in the custody of the Executive Engineer of the Devaswom at Kottayam. The said book has to be forwarded to the Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Kottayam of the Travancore Devaswom Board for clearing the amount payable in respect of the Transformer installation. It, however, is still kept in the custody of the Executive Engineer stating that, only after clearance of the balance amount in respect of first transaction, would it be possible to return it to the Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 3. The learned standing counsel for the Devaswom submits that the entire amount is not disbursed, as the system is yet to be connected to the main lines and if at all there occurs any defect/lapse in this regard, it has to be rectified by the contractor; adding that it is only a prudent action. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the installation is now working on generator and that the system is never defective. It is stated that the 'Auditorium' is being used for various functions and that the Devaswom is generating funds. 4. In the said circumstance, we find it appropriate to direct the Devaswom Board to release the balance amount covered by Ext. R4(d), after giving credit to the amounts already paid to the 4th respondent pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. This shall be on giving an 'undertaking' in the form of 'bond' by the 4th respondent, that if at all any further defect/lapse is noted, the same shall be rectified at the cost of the 4th respondent. The undertaking made by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent in this regard before this Court is also recorded. It is ordered accordingly. The undertaking made by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent in this regard before this Court is also recorded. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate steps shall be taken by the authorities of the Devaswom in connection with the clearance of the amount payable to the 4th respondent with regard to the installation of the Transformer as well. Transmission of the M-book shall be effected forthwith, if the version stated by the 4th respondent contractor is correct. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 8. Thereafter, by the order dated 30.09.2020 this Court directed the Board to take over the task of running the auditorium.The said order reads thus; “Going by the endorsement in Judges' papers the captioned DBP was closed on 02.04.2018. Nonetheless, the parties would contend that it is nothing but a wrong endorsement evincible by a mere perusal of the order dated 02.04.2018. Hence, for proceeding further with the DBP as also for considering the Interlocutory Applications filed in the DBP this imbroglio has to be solved. We will consider this issue first. A careful scanning of the DBP registered based on TDB Report No.140 of 2014 would reveal that many issues pertaining to the construction of an auditorium in Nettorkottukavu Devaswom call for consideration therein. However, only one issue was actually addressed as per order dated 02.04.2018. We say so because it is evident from the records that earlier Report No.4 dated 27.04.2016 was filed by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court whereby and whereunder he made certain suggestions, though not pertaining to the work in question but on the general aspects. It is also relevant to note that the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards also filed TDB Report No.3 of 2017 on the aforesaid issue. The proceedings would reveal that on those reports orders are yet to be passed, in other words, they are still pending consideration. In that context, it is only apposite to refer to an order passed in the captioned DBP dated 11.04.2017. As per the said order the DBP was directed to be posted immediately after vacation 'for consideration further course of action pursuant to Report No.3/2017 submitted by the learned Ombudsman and Report No.4 dated 27.04.2016 submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner'. In that context, it is only apposite to refer to an order passed in the captioned DBP dated 11.04.2017. As per the said order the DBP was directed to be posted immediately after vacation 'for consideration further course of action pursuant to Report No.3/2017 submitted by the learned Ombudsman and Report No.4 dated 27.04.2016 submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner'. The learned Advocate Commissioner evidently submitted before the Court regarding the submission of Report No.5 as well and also about his proposal to file final report immediately. There are certain other aspects also require consideration in the DBP. The order dated 02.04.2018 would reveal that when the matter was taken up on that day for consideration, finding that electrical connection was not given to the main line for want of numbering the building, it was observed that such a situation had occurred on account of the lapse, either on the part of the Devaswom Board or on the part of the Civil Contractor. In such circumstances, as is evident from the order, appropriate directions were issued. Paragraph 4 of the said order would reveal that an interim direction was issued to the Devaswom Board to release the balance amount covered by Ext.R4(d), after giving credit to the amounts already paid to the 4th respondent, the Contractor. The 4th respondent was also directed to give an undertaking in the form of a bond to the effect that, if at all, any further defect/lapse is noted, the same would be rectified at its costs. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that in compliance with the directions therein such a bond was executed and thereafter a portion of the amount which is covered by Ext.R4(d) was paid. It is also his contention that as relates the electrical works for which contract was executed with the 4th respondent by the Devaswom Board the entire works were completed. He also asserts that after completion of the works, though electrical connection was not given, using the generator installed in the premises of the auditorium inauguration of the auditorium was conducted in the year 2017 itself. Subsequently, a transformer was also installed in its premises. As per the order, taking note of all the circumstances directions were given to ensure that steps are taken for getting electric connection to the auditorium. Subsequently, a transformer was also installed in its premises. As per the order, taking note of all the circumstances directions were given to ensure that steps are taken for getting electric connection to the auditorium. On going through the order dated 02.04.2018 though a ministerial endorsement to the effect that the DBP was closed was made in the Judges' papers we have no hesitation to hold that, in troth, the DBP was not closed. In the said circumstances, the wrong endorsement to the effect that the DBP was closed stands deleted. 2. We will now proceed to consider the question relating the delay in getting electrical connection to the auditorium despite the lapse of more than two years since the order dated 02.04.2018. It is to be noted that the construction in question is an auditorium and evidently, it was completed in the year 2017 itself. Its inauguration was also conducted in the year 2017. What is remaining to be done is only giving electrical connection to the auditorium and in that regard, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the sole process which is yet to be completed is 'charging' of the main line. Thus, the fact is that even after 2½ years since then, electrical connection is yet to be given or rather 'charging' is yet to be done. During the course of arguments the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board handed over a copy of the letter bearing No.49/K/20-21 dated 22.07.2020 of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division Chengannur to the Chief Engineer General, Trivandrum. Going by the said letter the electrical work was commenced in 2016. It is only profitable to extract the following recital from the said letter in the contextual situation:- "Now the auditorium runs on 3 Phase temporary connection and 125 KVA DG Set. Permanent electrical connection had not yet availed from KSEB due to the non-execution of the following works. 1) Control wiring of transformer 2) Primary and secondary connections of transformer 3) Submission of scheme to the electrical inspectorate and getting approval 4) Remittance of statutory fee to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB" We are at a loss to understand how remittance of statutory fees to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB could be taken as a work yet to be executed by the Contractor. There is nothing on record to indicate that it was also a matter to be carried out by the Contractor. The learned Standing Counsel drew our attention to the last limb of the said letter which reads thus:- "I may also report that a demand notice worth Rs.1,13,600/- towards the fee for availing HT connection was issued to Assistant Commissioner, TDB, Thrikkariyoor, from the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical circle office, Perumbavoor on 22.03.2019. But it is learned that the amount was not remitted yet." 3. The said letter dated 22.07.2020 would reveal that pursuant to an order from the Chief Engineer General of Travancore Devaswom Board the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Chengannur inspected the auditorium on 20.07.2020 along with Assistant Engineer Electrical, Kottayam. The fact is that despite the order dated 02.04.2018 and the order said to have been issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical circle office, Perumbavoor dated 22.03.2019, referred to in the letter dated 22.07.2020 no concrete steps were taken for getting electrical connection to the auditorium. The submissions made before us by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would reveal that in respect of giving of electrical connection a process of charging the main line is yet to take place and in that regard necessary fee has to be paid to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB by the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the light of the order dated 02.04.2018 it can only be said that the very purpose of the said order is yet to be accomplished. The Board and the 4th respondent accuse each other for the lapse and delay. Pending consideration of such issues we think it only appropriate to issue a direction to the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board to see that the statutory fee to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB is paid within a period of two weeks from today so as to get the main line to the auditorium 'charged'. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that to enable remittance certain documents are to be received from the 4th respondent Contractor. As noticed hereinbefore, as early as on 02.04.2018 the 4th respondent submitted before this Court that the entire electrical works were completed. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that to enable remittance certain documents are to be received from the 4th respondent Contractor. As noticed hereinbefore, as early as on 02.04.2018 the 4th respondent submitted before this Court that the entire electrical works were completed. In such circumstances, necessary documents, if any, in the possession of the 4th respondent, required for the aforesaid purpose shall be handed over by the 4th respondent on specific request for any such document by the Secretary, TDB. On such receipt, the remittance of the statutory fee to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB, shall be effected. All such steps shall be done within the above stipulated period. 4. I.A.No.1 of 2020 in DBP.No.123 of 2014 is filed by the President of the Temple Advisory Committee of Nettorkottukavu which was dissolved. It is stated therein that as per order dated 10.01.2017 this Court entrusted the task of putting the auditorium in use in a profitable manner, pending further decision by the Travancore Devaswom Board with the Temple Advisory Committee. On 18.08.2020 a notice was issued to him under orders of the Devaswom Board by the Administrator Officer Nettorkkottukavu temple. As per the same, he was required to hand over the possession of the auditorium by name Tejaswini auditorium', within 7 days. In the above I.A. his prayer is to the effect that handing over of the possession may be directed to be done only after obtaining orders from this Court and also in the presence of Advocate Commissioner appointed in this case by this Court and after preparing an inventory in respect of the articles and materials. It is submitted that certain officials of the Devaswom Board forcibly entered into the auditorium and virtually took possession forcibly. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that on that day the original key of the auditorium was also handed over. The response in respect of such is yet to be placed on record by TDB. It is a fact that though the Temple Advisory Committee accepted the task of conducting the auditorium pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.01.2017 accounts relating to the amounts received and the expenses incurred incurred are yet to be submitted for auditing. The learned counsel submitted that accounts were never been called for. It is a fact that though the Temple Advisory Committee accepted the task of conducting the auditorium pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.01.2017 accounts relating to the amounts received and the expenses incurred incurred are yet to be submitted for auditing. The learned counsel submitted that accounts were never been called for. Be that as it may, the fact is that accounts are yet to be audited. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that he is not aware whether the original keys were handed over or not. The right of the TDB to run the auditorium is indisputable. Hence, pending consideration of other issues there will be an order to the effect that if the original key of the auditorium was not handed over by the 4th respondent to the officials of TDB it shall be done on 08.10.2020, in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in this case. If the key was already handed over, after recording the said factum and after verification of the said aspect from both the sides, the Advocate Commissioner shall prepare an inventory of the articles and materials which are in the auditorium and in the other annexed rooms. 9. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that in terms of the order dated 30.09.2020, the auditorium is now under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The said order was followed by another order dated 23.07.2021, which reads thus; "The captioned DBP was registered based on TDB Report No.140/2014 in Complaint No.225 of 2014 relating complaints of non-completion of construction of an auditorium in Nettorkottukavu Temple in Ernakulam. The 4th respondent society is the Electrical Contractor for the work. According to it the works are completed. But, according to the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), the works are yet to be completed. The learned Standing Counsel for TDB sumits that the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) required TDB to complete certain works and to submit completion report for the purpose of energising the Transformer installed in the site in question. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that some more works have to be done before energising the Transformer. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that it would be dangerous to energise the Transformer straightaway without recalibration. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that some more works have to be done before energising the Transformer. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that it would be dangerous to energise the Transformer straightaway without recalibration. It is submitted that the Transformer was unloaded in the premises about three years back. In such circumstances, it is to be verified whether recalibration is required before energising the same. The rival contentins would reveal that the construction of the auditorium was completed and it has been functioning now, using generators. Therefore, the only question now to be resolved is whether the Transformer can be straighaway energised after completing the works which according to the KSEB remaining to be done before energising the Transformer. The word of caution sounded by the 4th respondent society is not a matter to be brushed aside. Taking note of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the competent engineers attached to the TDB and Electrical Engineers of KSEB can conduct a joint Inspection regarding the necessity or otherwise of recalibration of the Transformer which is installed in the premises of the auditorium for the purpose of energising the same. To enable such a joint inspection it will be open to the TDB to make a requistion to the competent authority of the KSEB to depute competent Electrical Engineers to conduct an inspection to decide on the requirement or otherwise of recalibration of the Transformer. They may do so within a week from today. On receipt of such requisition the officer concerned of the KSEB shall ensure deputation of competent Engineer for the aforesaid purpose within a week thereafter. After such inspection a report on the requirement or otherwise of recalibration, shall be furnished to this Court on or before 11.08.2021. Further orders would be passed on perusing such a report. It will also be open to the parties to move this Court before 11.08.2021." 10. On 08.04.2022, when this DBP came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; Electrification work of the auditorium of Nettoorkottu Kavu Devaswom is yet to be completed. The 4 th respondent, a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is the contractor. The contract was entered into on 13.06.2016. The work was agreed to be completed within six months. The 4 th respondent, a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is the contractor. The contract was entered into on 13.06.2016. The work was agreed to be completed within six months. Since there was delay in completion of the work, this Court had to intervene in the matter on several occasions. This Court on 02.04.2018 while considering the matter, noticed that there was only a slow progress in the work and both sides, the 1 st respondent-Travancore Devaswom and the 4 th respondent-contractor were hurling allegations at each other. After considering the matter in detail, this Court on the said day directed as follows: "4. In the said circumstance, we find it appropriate to direct the Devaswom Board to release the balance amount covered by Ext.R4(d), after giving credit to the amounts already paid to the 4 th respondent pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. This shall be on giving an 'undertaking' in the form of 'bond' by the 4th respondent, that if at all any further defect/lapse is noted, the same shall be rectified at the cost of the 4th respondent. The undertaking made by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent in this regard before this Court is also recorded. It is ordered accordingly." 2. Despite such undertaking, there still occurred delay in completing the remaining work. The matter has again come up for consideration before this Court on 30.09.2020. This Court took cognizance of the fact that the auditorium was running on 3-phase temporary connection and 125 KVA DG set and that causes much loss to the Devaswom Board. Hence it was held that permanent electric connection from the Kerala State Electricity Board should immediately be availed, and therefore, the 4th respondent should complete the work without any further delay. Accordingly, this Court passed the following order: "The submissions made before us by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would reveal that in respect of giving of electrical connection a process of charging the main line is yet to take place and in that regard necessary fee has to be paid to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB by the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the light of the order dated 02.04.2018 it can only be said that the very purpose of the said order is yet to be accomplished. In the light of the order dated 02.04.2018 it can only be said that the very purpose of the said order is yet to be accomplished. The Board and the 4 th respondent accuse each other for the lapse and delay. Pending consideration of such issues we think it only appropriate to issue a direction to the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board to see that the statutory fee to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB is paid within a period of two weeks from today so as to get the main line to the auditorium 'charged'. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that to enable remittance certain documents are to be received from the 4th respondent Contractor. As noticed herein before, as early as on 2.4.2018 the 4th respondent submitted before this court that the entire electrical works were completed. In such circumstances, necessary documents, if any, in the possession of the 4th respondent, required for the aforesaid purpose shall be handed over by the 4th respondent on specific request for any such document by the Secretary, TDB. On such receipt, the remittance of the statutory fee to the electrical inspectorate and KSEB, shall be effected. All such steps shall be done within the above stipulated period." 3. On 13.08.2021, the 1 st respondent Tranvancore Devaswom Board pointed out the unceasing delay in completion of work of electrification and energizing the transformer. The works remained to be completed before energisation of the transformer were brought to the notice of this Court. The 4 th respondent then contended that the estimated cost of the remaining work was Rs.2,94,000/- and he was short of funds. This Court after taking into all aspects directed the 1 st respondent to release an amount of Rs.3 lakhs with a direction that within three weeks of receipt of the above said amount, the 4 th respondent should carry out the works specifically mentioned in paragraph No.6 of additional statement filed by the 1 st respondent on 13.08.2021. The amount was accordingly released and the4 th respondent does not dispute that fact. 4. The amount was accordingly released and the4 th respondent does not dispute that fact. 4. Still, the work remained incomplete and when the matter was taken up for consideration on 21.12.2021, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent reported no instruction from the party and therefore this Court gave direction to the Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha to ensure personal appearance of the 4 th respondent, District Contractors and Labourers Co-operative Society Ltd. Accordingly, on 23.12.2021, the President of the 4 th respondent Society appeared before this Court. He then undertook to complete the work without any further delay and that at any rate within two weeks. That undertaking was also recorded by this Court. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board filed a statement that the work remained incomplete and also pointing out the works remain to be completed. This Court therefore directed the additional 5 th respondent to conduct an inspection and submit a report regarding the present status of the electrification work. Accordingly, the 5 th respondent inspected the premises and submitted a report dated 21.02.2022. In that report, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Muvattupuzha, additional 5 th respondent, pointed out nine items of work yet to be completed for energisation of the transformer. The 4 th respondent filed a counter affidavit in answer to the said report. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent filed additional statements dated23.03.2022 and 05.04.2022. 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 7. In the counter affidavit, the 4 th respondent took the view that works noted to be incomplete in the report dated 21.02.2022 are only trivial in nature. Out of nine items, item No.7, namely fencing and yard metalling is not a part of the contract and it has to be done independently. Item No.1 is obtaining approval from the Electrical Inspectorate, for which no work at the site is required. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent would submit that work of providing a canopy to the transformer is the responsibility of the Board and that would be done by the Board. Thus excepting the works of providing canopy to the transformer and fencing and yard metalling all the remaining works are the responsibility of the 4 th respondent. 8. Thus excepting the works of providing canopy to the transformer and fencing and yard metalling all the remaining works are the responsibility of the 4 th respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent would contend that there was delay in making payment by the 1 st respondent and that has contributed to the delay in completion of the work. In the additional statement dated 05.04.2022 filed by the 1 st respondent it is stated that Rs.52,50,000/- has already been paid to the 4 th respondent. Pursuant to the order dated 13.08.2021, Rs.3 lakhs was paid to him, when in his view, Rs.2,94,000/- was the estimated value of the remaining work. Therefore, the 4 th respondent cannot have any complaint that on account of non-payment of money, there occurred delay. 9. This Court accepted more than once the undertakings made by the 4 th respondent to complete the work within a time frame. Repeatedly, this Court issued directions to the 4 th respondent to complete the work within the specified period in the respective orders. Despite such undertakings and directions from this Court, the 4 th respondent did not care to complete the work and see that the transformer is energized. 10. The 4 th respondent is bound by the conditions of the contract. It is a work contract. It is not for this Court to intervene at every stage of the work and ensure progress. In case there is lapse on the part of the 4 th respondent in accomplishing the work in terms of the contract, certainly the consequences would have to follow. That apart, the 4 th respondent did not oblige the directions of this Court and also failed to honour the undertakings he has made before this Court. We are refraining from commenting any further on those aspects at this stage. 11. A contractor cannot protract his work under the contract stating one of the other excuses, which is untenable in the circumstances of the contract. The remaining work as pointed out by additional 5 th respondent in his report dated 21.02.2022 shall be completed and the transformer energized within one month from today. 12. We accordingly direct that,- (i) within one month from today, the 1 st respondent shall see that the works of providing canopy to the transformer and fencing and yard-metalling are done on its initiative. 12. We accordingly direct that,- (i) within one month from today, the 1 st respondent shall see that the works of providing canopy to the transformer and fencing and yard-metalling are done on its initiative. (ii) within one month from today, the 4 th respondent shall complete the entire remaining work and get the transformer energized. (iii) In case any help or assistance in processing papers relating to obtaining permission from the Electrical Department and the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited is required to the 4 th respondent, officials of the 1 st respondent, within a day of receipt of the request, shall do the needful. 13. We make it clear that any lapse on the part of the 4 th respondent will invite not only action for violation of the terms of the contract, but also penal consequences for violation of the undertakings made by him before this Court and for disobedience of the repeated directions given to him by this Court.” 11. On 09.07.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that steps are being taken to execute a service connection agreement as requested by the Executive Engineer, KSEB, which shall be executed within two days. Thereafter, on 18.07.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB submitted that measures have been taken and energization will be carried out on that day. The said submission was recorded. 12. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, it is submitted at the Bar that energization has already taken place on 18.07.2024. 13. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the Board and its officials, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent District Contractors and Laborers Cooperative Societies Ltd., the learned counsel for the additional 6 th respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB, the learned Amicus Curie for the learned Ombudsman and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the additional 8 th respondent State and the additional 9 th respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit. 14. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. 14. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials 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 the temples for the devotees. As per Section 16 of the Act, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I 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. As per Section 31 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 15. In Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 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. 16. 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. 16. 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 the 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 the 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) 17. 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, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/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, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated 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 Government, 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 misappropriation. 18. 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 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The Division Bench further noticed that 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 is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. 19. In Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022:KER:6409 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642] a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years. The writ petitioner, who was the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years. The writ petitioner, who was the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Though he had defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,20,500/-, he was permitted to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of auction, i.e., beyond 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against him till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. In the said decision, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ] , this Court found that, the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who have permitted the successful bidder (who has remitted only 50% of the auction amount) to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of the auction, have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. 20. In Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411] this Court held that in view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the 3 rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the said Act, under the Chengannur Group. 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. The 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. 21. The 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. 21. In Suo motu [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ] this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom 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. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. 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. 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. 22. In the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, the construction work of the auditorium in question was started in the year 2009. From the year 2017 to 2022, the auditorium was managed by the Temple Advisory Committee and thereafter from the year 2022 onwards it is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Due to the delay in installation of transformer for drawing high tension power supply to the auditorium, for a considerably long period, the auditorium was functioning with generator backup. 23. In the order dated 27.10.2014, a Division Bench of this Court noticed that, notwithstanding the fact that more than Rs.3 Crores has been spent, the construction of the auditorium could not be completed and a further sum of Rs.2.60 Crores is required to complete the work. In that order the Division Bench observed that a thorough probe into the construction of the auditorium in the Devaswom land of Nettorkottukavu Bhagavathi Temple should be conducted. By the order dated 14.10.2015 the Division Bench referred the matter back to the learned Ombudsman to consider whether guidelines could be issued to revamp and if necessary, restructure the process of the Board in awarding contract works. Pursuant to that direction, the learned Ombudsman has filed TDB Report No.3 of 2017, in which various suggestions have been made, which are extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 5. Pursuant to that direction, the learned Ombudsman has filed TDB Report No.3 of 2017, in which various suggestions have been made, which are extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 5. In the said report, the learned Ombudsman has also considered the suggestions put forth by the State Audit Department. 24. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this DBP by directing the additional 9 th respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit to conduct audit of the entire income and expenditure in connection with the construction work of the auditorium of Nettorkottukavu Bhagavathi Temple, including the income and expenditure when the auditorium was managed by the Temple Advisory Committee from the year 2017 to 2022 and thereafter when it is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The relevant accounts with supporting documents by the Temple Advisory Committee and the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be made available to additional 9 th respondent Senior Deputy Director, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board shall ensure that the State Audit Department is provided with the relevant records relating to the construction work in question and the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner as well as the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner shall ensure that the accounts and other records, which are necessary for the State Audit Department to complete the audit of accounts, are provided to the Senior Deputy Director, by the concerned officer of the Devaswom and the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee, so as to enable the Senior Deputy Director to complete the statutory audit, without any delay. After completing the statutory audit, the report of the State Audit Department shall be filed before this Court, which shall be numbered as a DBAR and placed for consideration before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters. It would be open to additional 9 th respondent Senior Deputy Director to file interim reports before this Court, in case further directions of this Court are necessary for completing the statutory audit, which shall also be numbered as DBAR and listed before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters.