Building permits are essential for temple constructions under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, and all expenditures must be subjected to statutory audit.

ORDER :

(Anil K. Narendran, J.)

This DBP is registered based on Report No.6 of 2025 of the learned Ombudsman in Petition No.11 of 2024 filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board and its Executive Engineer seeking approval of the estimate and award of the work of Ayarkadu Devaswom in Kottarakkra Group, for the construction of Chuttambalam. The report dated 03.01.2025 of the learned Ombudsman reads thus;

“2. This petition was filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Executive Engineer seeking approval for the award of the contract in respect of the work relating Ayarkadu Devaswom in Kottarakkara Group for the construction of ’Chuttambalam’ at an estimate of Rs.47,63,000/-. It is mentioned in the petition that the Board has accorded administrative sanction to the estimate of the above work for Rs.47,63,000/- vide Board ROC No.702/24/M dated 01.02.2024 based on DSR 2018 including 18% GST. Copy of the administrative sanction was produced as Annexure A-I along with the petition. It is also mentioned in the petition that the Temple Advisory Committee has agreed to do the work at 25% below the sanctioned estimate rate. For this they have nominated Sri. Arun M.S as their nominee. The resolution of the Temple Advisory Committee and written willingness of the nominee Sri.Arun M.S were produced along with the petition as Annexures II and III respectively. The Board has accorded contract sanction in favour of the Temple Administrative Committee nominee Sri.Arun M.S at 25% below the sanctioned estimate rate and copy of the contract sanction of the Board in favour of the Temple Advisory Committee was produced along with the petition as Annexure IV. They have also produced technical sanction for the work by the Chief Engineer, copy of which was produced as Annexure V along with the petition. They have also produced copy of the estimate report based on DSR 2018 giving details of the nature of the work and the amount required for each work, copy of which was produced as Annexure VI to the petition. They have produced sanctioned estimate (DSR 2018) along with the petition as Annexure VII. It is stated in the petition that the estimate was prepared based on the plan which was prepared by the Travancore Devaswom Board Architect as per Sasthric principle and produced copy of the plan so prepared as Annexure VIII along with the specifications given by Sri.V.P.Brahmadathan Namboodiripad, Vasthu expert on this aspect. The Sub Group Officer, Chirakkadavu Sub Group has produced income and expenditure statement of the Ayarkadu Devaswom for the last three years and the same was produced along with the petition as Annexure IX. Since the estimate is above Rs.20 lakhs, this petition is filed for getting approval and sanction of the Honourable High Court.

3. On the basis of the averments in the petition, remarks were called for from the State Audit Department and the State Audit Department has filed their first remarks/counter affidavit dated 07.11.2024 wherein they analysed the details mentioned in the Maramath Petition for approval and the documents produced along with the petition by the Travancore Devaswom Board. It was mentioned in the said remarks that the concurrence of the Thanthri (Anujna) for the proposed construction of Chuttambalam was not produced along with the petition and that will have to be produced for verification. Provisions for income-tax and Kerala Building and other construction workers Welfare Fund contribution should be made in the final estimate of the work. Building Permit has to be obtained from the Local Authority for the proposed construction of ’Chuttambalam’ after getting approval of the petition. The proposal can be approved subject to audit of the expenditure incurred for the aforesaid works. The counter affidavit/remarks of the State Audit Department is produced as Annexure 01 to this report.

4. On the basis of the first remarks, as per proceedings dated 07.11.2024 the then Ombudsman observed that in answer to the remarks of t