Kerala High Court
Travancore Devaswom Board vs Deputy Director on 20 November, 2017
Author: V Shircy
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/29TH KARTHIKA, 1939
DBP.No. 75 of 2017 ()
----------------------
IN THE MATTER OF TDB REPORT NO.75/2017-APPROVAL OF ESTIMATE AND AWARD
OF CONTRACT FOR THE WORK OF PANDALAM VALIYAKOICKAL DEVASWOM-ARANMULA
GROUP-CONSTRUCTING ANNADANA MANDAPAM AND PARKING GROUND-SUO MOTO
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-REG.
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAVELIKKARA.
BY ADV. SRI. D.SREEKUMAR
SC FOR TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R. BY SRI.T.K.ANANTHAKRISHNAN,
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &
SHIRCY V.,JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
D.B.P.No.75 of 2017
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2017
O R D E R
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
This matter relates to the approval of estimate and award of contract for the construction of 'Annadana Mandapam' and 'parking ground' in connection with the Pandalam Valiyakoyikkal Devaswom-Aranmula Group.
2. In fact, pursuant to Report No.92 of 2016 dated 27.06.2016 of the learned Ombudsman, the matter was considered in DBP.No.92 of 2016. As per the order dated 28.10.2016, this Court concurred with the views expressed by the learned Ombudsman and necessary sanction was given. However, the matter came to be listed further as per the present DBP, based on the report bearing No.27 of 2017 dated 14.09.2017 submitted by the learned Ombudsman, referring to the change in circumstances.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board, learned amicus curiae and the learned Special Government Pleader for the State. It is pointed out that, as per the earlier estimate, the construction was to be made providing D.B.P.No.75/2017 2 'column foundation'. But later, on conducting soil test it has found that column foundation was not enough and that 'pile foundation' had to be laid to support the construction, incurring an additional expense of 22,00,000/-. It was accordingly, that a revised estimate was prepared and submitted before the learned Ombudsman, seeking for sanction. The facts and figures have been considered by the learned Ombudsman leading to the report dated 14.09.2017. The relevant portion of the observation of the learned Ombudsman is extracted below:
"9) Considering the above, the following are submitted for consideration:
The estimate earlier prepared and sanction obtained by filing maramath petition was for an ordinary foundation for column putting foundation and the change brought out now based on the soil testing necessitated piling foundation as designed by the Architect appointed by the Master plan. It is true that for construction of this nature other than regular temple structures like Sreekovil, Thidappilly etc., it will be desirable to conduct soil testing before preparing the estimate to avoid such contingencies as pointed out by the Audit. Hence the Chief Engineer (General) be directed to take note of the suggestion for implementation in future. As the change brought out in the design for D.B.P.No.75/2017 3 foundation could not be pre-conceived earlier because of the absence of any soil testing, cannot be due to any ill-motive, to avoid any pre- qualification tender. However, such complaints ought to be ruled out, if only soil testing is done before preparing the estimate as pointed out.
Subject to the above facts, for appropriate directions in this behalf, the changes brought out in the foundation and the difference in the amount being comparatively low, the report be accepted after due consideration and changes brought about as above be ordered to be recorded."
4. After hearing both sides and on going through the materials on record including the suggestion made by the learned Ombudsman in the report, we find it appropriate to grant sanction for the revised estimate. It is ordered accordingly. The expenditure incurred for the work shall be subjected to audit after the work is over.
Matter stands closed.
Sd/-
(P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) Sd/-
(SHIRCY V., JUDGE) TRUE COPY P. A TO JUDGE DG