Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023/7TH ASWINA, 1945 DBP NO. 26 OF 2023 IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.
------------ COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD - REPORT NO. 9/2023 IN COMPLAINT NO.
13/2023 - MATTER PERTAINING TO THE REQUEST MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT FOR APPLYING FOR LEASE OF A BUILDING IN VARANASI
PETITIONER/S:
GURU PRASAD S/O G.R.HERAMBHA BHATTA, SHREE KASHI SANKETI BHAWAN, B.14/16, MANASROVAR, NEAR KEDAR GHAT POST OFFICE, VARANASI 221001
BY ADVS.
SUOMOTU NEERAJ S.VINOD BHAT(K/000755/1998)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHINDEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR 680001 2 THE DEPUY DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AUDIT, THRISSUR-680 020 3 FARDEENKHAN S/O SADRUDDIN KHAN C28/22, TELIYABAGH VARANASI, VARANASI CANTT UTTAR PRADESH, PIN -221002 ADDL.
R2 AND ADDL. R3 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.04.2023
BY ADVS.RAJIT
DBP No.26 of 2023 2
SRI P. RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN;
SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI K.P.SUDHEER -STANDING COUNSEL -COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DBP No.26 of 2023 3 ORDER Anil K. Narendran, J.
This DBP is registered based on Report No.9 of 2023 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.13 of 2023 made by the complainant-Guru Prasad of Varanasi, which centers around a building owned by Cochin Devaswom Board at Varanasi, which is known as 'Cochin Sathram'. The said building is presently leased out to the additional 3rd respondent-Fardeenkhan, another resident of Varanasi, on the strength of Annexure R3(j) licence agreement dated 17.08.2022 executed with the Cochin Devaswom Board, for the period from 01.03.2021 till 28.02.2024, on payment of an annual licence fee of Rs.2,65,000/- plus applicable GST.
2.
On 11.04.2023, when this DBP came up for consideration, the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit and also the licensee of the building in question were suo motu impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3. The learned Standing Counsel entered appearance for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the additional 2nd respondent. Notice was ordered to the complainant and also to the additional 3rd respondent, by speed post returnable within four weeks. The learned Standing Counsel and also the learned Senior Government
DBP No.26 of 2023 4 Pleader were directed to get instructions.
3.
The additional 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit dated 14.08.2023. Paragraphs 2 to 10 of that affidavit read thus;
''2. Cochin Devaswom Board has not formulated Bye-law letting out of Kasi Sathram at Varanasi. In the Board Order No.R- 5742/10 dated 06.10.2014, Cochin Devaswom Board specified the conditions for the above purpose.
3. As per the above Order, Cochin Devaswom Board granted right for running the Sathram for a period of one year (from 01.01.2015 to 01.01.2016) on a rent of Rs.1,75,000/- per year.
As per clause 3 of above said Order, lease period may be extended with 10% hike in the rent with a new agreement, if found necessary. But as per clause 2 of the agreement executed on 24.10.2014, lease period is 3 years (01.01.2015 to 01.01.2018) and there is no separate clause regarding the 10% of yearly hike of the rent and execution of yearly agreement as envisaged in the Board Order.
4. As per the Board Order No.R1/15290/14 dated 18.05.2015, lease period is changed into 01.03.2015 to 29.02.2016. But there is no agreement executed in this regard.
5. As per Board Order No.R1/15290/14 dated 25.10.2016, lease period extended from 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2017 without any agreement.
6. There is no agreement and Board Order in connection with the period from 01.03.2017 to 28.02.2018.
7. As per Order No.R1/15290/14 dated 02.07.2018, Board granted right of running Sathram for 3 years from 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2021 with an annual rent of Rs.2,15,000/-. But agreement in this regard not seen executed.
8. As per Order No.R1/15290/2014 dated 21.10.2021, lease period further extended for another 3 years from 01.03.2021 to 29.02.2024 with a annual rent of Rs.2,70,000/- + GST. But on
DBP No.26 of 2023 5 the request of lessee, the rent reduced to Rs.2,65,000/- + GST.
But agreement in this regard executed on 17.08.2022, i.e., one year and 5 months after commencement of lea period.
9. It is submitted that, on the basis of above said Board Order dated 06.10.2014 and agreement dated 24.10.2014, extension of lease period upto 28.02.2018 is justifiable. But Board has incurred loss due to the non-increase of 10% rent on yearly basis as envisaged in the clause No.3 of Board Order dated 06.10.2014 on R-5742/10.
10. It is submitted that lease period extended from 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2021 and from 01.03.2021 to 29.02.2024 to the existing person without inviting fresh tenders is not justifiable.''
4.
The additional 3rd respondent has filed an affidavit dated 14.08.2023. Paragraphs 2 to 10 of that affidavit read thus;
''2. It is understood that the King of Varanasi had given the King of erstwhile Cochin area land in Varanasi near the river Ganga and a building was constructed for housing the devotees coming to worship in Varanasi. Over a period of time, the building became dilapidated and was in the verge of collapse. The Cochin Devaswom Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was not getting any income or revenue from the building. In fact, the buildings of Travancore Devaswom Board is also situated near this building given to Cochin Devaswom Board and the building of the Travancore Devaswom Board are occupied by tenants, who are refusing to be evicted by filing of various court cases.
3. It is respectfully pointed out that the area around Varanasi is declared as Heritage centre and construction of new buildings in the areas restricted and can be carried out only after getting permission from the Varanasi Development Authority. It is very difficult to get the approval for construction of a building. The Cochin Devaswom Board was not getting any income from the land since no one was occupying the dilapidated building. It is at that stage, the Cochin Devaswom Board invited tenders for
DBP No.26 of 2023 6 executing work for construction of a building for lodging the devotees. I was the successful bidder who quoted 50% of above the estimated rate of Rs.22,40,000/-. Thereafter the Assistant Engineer of the Board called me for negotiation and awarded the work to me at 45% above the estimate rate. A true copy of the order No.H1.9770/07 dated 24-02-2009 issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure-R3(a).
4. Thereafter the Board decided to construct the first floor above the ground floor and since the ground floor was constructed by me without any problem whatsoever, the board decided to permit me to construct the first floor over the ground floor at a revised estimate of Rs.30,00,000/-. A true copy of the order No.
H1.9770/07 issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board dated 27- 02-2012 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure-R3(b).
5. Thereafter, the Board wanted to have room for office space, kitchen and store room in the building constructed by me. I was again the successful bidder who quoted 55% above the estimated rate of Rs.3,00,000/- and the same was again negotiated and awarded at 15% above the estimate rate. A true copy of order No.H1.2339/14 dated 07-01-2015 issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure-R3(c).
6. There were lot of complaints regarding the attack of monkeys on the devotees while they were residing in the building.
Therefore, the Board decided to have mesh and grill work enclosing the building keeping it safe from monkeys. I was again the successful bidder who quoted 30% above the estimated rate of Rs.3,60,000/- and the same was again negotiated and awarded at 15% above the estimated rate. A true copy of order No.H1.2309/16 issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board dated 16- 05-2017 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure-R3(d).
7. The Board decided to let out the building constructed by me by calling for tenders. I was the successful bidder who was given
DBP No.26 of 2023 7 the right for running the sathram for a period of 1 year. By virtue of order dated 06.10.2014 on R-5742/10 the Kashi Sathram was let out to me for a period of one year on the basis of quotation received from me for Rs.1,75,000/- by the Special Devaswom Commissioner. It was specified in the rent deed executed between the Cochin Devaswom Board by its Secretary in charge, Special Devaswom Commissioner that the rental arrangement is for a period of three years and the same is to be renewed every single year starting from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2018. It was also specified that I was supposed to make all necessary arrangements including the infrastructural facilities, payment of bills etc., for the smooth running of the sathram. A true copy of the rent deed between Cochin Devaswom Board and the Petitioner dated 24.10.2014 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure R3(e).
8. Since there was non-completion of construction work, I was not able to run the sathram during the period January and February 2015, I requested for extending my original period by a period of two months and accordingly the 1st year period was extended from 31.12.2016 to 29.02.2016. A true copy of the proceedings No.R1.15290/14 of the Cochin Devaswom Board dated 18.05.2015 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure R3(f).
9. The period of the lease expired on 28.02.2018 and I ran the Sathram to the full satisfaction of the board. There were no complaints in respect of any of the functioning of the sathram. I therefore requested for extension of my lease period taking into consideration the smooth running of the sathram and also the proper maintenance and upkeep of the sathram, by submitting an application requesting for the same. I quoted an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- for running the sathram on the same terms as Annexure R3(e). The board opined that the rate quoted by me was low and therefore called me for negotiation. After negotiation, the board decided to give me the right for running
DBP No.26 of 2023 8 the sathram on enhanced rate of Rs.2,15,000/- + GST every year. The period of lease was 3 years from 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2021. The true copy of the proceedings No.R1-15290/14 of the Cochin Devaswom Board dated 02.07.2018 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure R3(g). The period from 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2021 again passed off with no complaints and much appreciation for the way the sathram was being maintained. Just before the termination of my period, I made a request for extending the period from 01.03.2021 to 29.03.2024. After entering to negotiations the board decided to give the right for running the sathram for the period 01.03.2021 to 29.03.2024 on me remitting an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- for each year. A true copy of the order No.R1.15290/14 date 18.10.2021 of the Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure R3(h).
10.
While I was running the sathram, I was not able to remit the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- per year since the covid 19 pandemic seriously affected the inflow of pilgrims and occupants in the sathram. I therefore requested the board to reduce the rate of the rent taking into consideration the circumstances accordingly the board reduced the rent from Rs.2,70,000/- to 2,65,000/- + GST. A true copy of order No.R1.15290/2019 of the Cochin Devaswom Board dated 21.10.2022 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure R3(i).
11.
Thereafter I executed a licence deed with the board incorporating the terms and conditions. The period of my licence for running the sathram will come to an end on 28.02.2024. A true copy of the licence agreement between Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board and the petitioner dated 17.08.2022 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure R3(j).
12.
The 3rd respondent has contributed towards the reconstruction of the dilapidated building as well as successful running of the sathram to make the same available to the pilgrims. It is respectfully submitted that it is within the power
DBP No.26 of 2023 9 of the Board to pass the necessary orders for the best interest of the properties owned by the Cochin Devaswom Board. As held by the division bench of this Hon'ble Court in Dr.P.K.Lazar Vs State of Kerala reported in [2023: Kerala: 23732]. In the said case, the decision of the Government to award the contract of downloading and publishing the materials in respect of the translated 74 titles in 26 subjects from the website of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) was challenged and it was contended that since the value of the contract was around 18 crores, the same, going by the provisions of the Store Purchase manual and relevant Government orders of the Union and State Government, could be awarded only by way of tender. This Hon'ble Court in the above cited decision has held that what is the best interest of the students community, is the exclusive domain of the Government, and no private person can insist on the same being awarded by way of tender or be awarded to a private person. The ratio laid down in the said decision is clearly applicable to the facts of this case.
13. Section 62: Vesting of Administration in the Board. The administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswom and Hindu religious institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin of the Government of Cochin and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board.
The question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the Board to extend the period of the license in favour of the 3rd respondent was within its powers. It is submitted with respect the relevant provisions of the Act:
Section 73A; Duties of the Board- It shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely:- i) To see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly.
DBP No.26 of 2023 10 ii) To monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly.
iii) To ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions.
iv) To establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees.
14. It is respectfully pointed out that the above provision will clearly go to show that it is within the power and domain of the Board to do all such things which will ensure the proper utilization and maintenance of the properties owned and maintained by the Cochin Devaswom Board.
15. It is respectfully pointed out that this Hon'ble Court must take into consideration the ground realities that exist at the place where the sathram is situated. In this context it is relevant to point out that the Travancore Devaswom board, which has a similar sathram in Varanasi, is getting no income from the property and is facing various court cases from occupants, who are asserting independent right. The ground reality in Varanasi is such that it would not be feasible to entrust the sathram to persons over which the board has no knowledge with regard to their antecedents. So far the sathram has not faced such a situation only because the board decided to allot the sathram to me, taking into consideration my long association with the board as well as my track record.''
5.
The complainant has filed an affidavit dated 22.08.2023. Paragraphs 2 to 10 of that affidavit read thus;
''4. The Cochin Devaswom Board vide Annexure O1 & O2 replied that the said Satram was leased out to Sri.Fardheenkhan (Pummy)/ 3rd respondent.
5. It is submitted that as per Annexure O1 & O2 , the Cochin Devaswom Board vide order dated 06.10.2024 lease out the said
DBP No.26 of 2023 11 property to the 3rd respondent for a period of one year on rent of Rs.1,75,000/- per year.
6. It is further submitted that based on the aforesaid order, an agreement dated 24.10.2014 was executed between the parties which shows that there is no provision for extension of the lease period.
7. Contravention to the aforesaid agreement the lease period was extended in every year on the request of the lessee and the said lease period will expire only on 2024.
8. It is apposite to note that the aforementioned extension was done by the Cochin Devaswom Board flouting the agreement dated 24.10.2014. Hence the further extension granted by the Cochin Devaswom Board is illegal and arbitrary.
9. It is further submitted that the Cochin Devaswom Board by extending the agreement dated 24.10.2014 had flouted the mandate envisaged under section 87 of the Travancore–Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act , 1950.
10. In light of the aforesaid facts I respectfully beg and crave for an order directing the Devaswom authorities to issue a tender notice letting out the “Cochin Satram” and the said tender notice shall be published in the local vernacular daily in Varanasi and an English daily who have circulation all over India and thereby allow every interested persons to participate in the tender. ''
6.
Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, an affidavit dated 26.09.2023 of the 1st respondent Devaswom Commissioner is placed on record. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said affidavit read thus;
“2. It is submitted that the above DBP arises out of complaint No. 13 of 2023 filed by the complainant and the learned ombudsman submitted Report No.9 of 2023 dated 14.03.2023.
The complainant issued letter dated 30.11.2022 to the president of Cochin Devaswom Board expressing his interest in applying
DBP No.26 of 2023 12 for lease of the building belonged to the board at varanasi for the period 2023-24. A reply dated 13.03.2023 was submitted by the secretary of the board to the learned Ombudsman. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Ombudsman submitted report No.9 of 2023 dated 14.03.2023.
3. It is not in dispute that the King of Varanasi had given the erstwhile king of Cochin, a land at Varanasi near the river Ganga and building was also constructed for housing the devotees who comes to Varanasi. It cannot be disputed that the building was in a dilapidated condition and was on the verge of collapse. The additional third respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 14.08.2023 and produced Annexure R3 (a) to (d) orders. The aforesaid orders would show that the Cochin Devaswom Board invited tenders for executing the construction of the building in question and the additional third respondent was the successful bidder and constructed the building in question.
4. It is submitted that the Cochin Devaswom Board invited tenders for letting out the building in question and the same was published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 04.09.2014. The Finance and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Secretary conducted an inspection of the building and a report was submitted on 01.10.2O14. Thereafter the first respondent issued order on R5742/10 dated 06.10.14. In this regard true copy of order on R5742/10 dated 06.10.14 issued by the first respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). By Annexure R1(a) order dated 06.10.2014, the building in question was entrusted to the additional third respondent for a period of one year on the basis of a quotation received from him for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. Annexure R3(e) is the rent deed dated 24.10.2014 entered into between Cochin Devaswom Board and the additional third respondent. It would show that the rental agreement was for a period of three years from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2018 and the rental agreement must be renewed every year. Annexure R3(f) order dated 18.05.2015
DBP No.26 of 2023 13 would show that a request was submitted by the additional third respondent on 21.03.2015 informing that he could not run the sathram during January and February 2015 due to non- completion of some construction works in the building and based on the recommendation of the maramath wing of the board sanction was accorded to extend the contract period for a period of one year from 01.03.2015 to 29.02.2016. The additional 3rd respondent was also directed to pay service tax. In this regard true copy of order on R1.15290/14 dated 25.10.2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(b).
5. It is submitted that on expiry of the lease on 28.02.2018, the additional third respondent requested for extension of the lease period taking into consideration the smooth running of the sathram and also the proper maintenance and upkeep of the same by the additional third respondent. He quoted an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- for running the sathram. Since the rate quoted by the additional third respondent was low, he was called for a negotiation and after the negotiation the board by Annexure R3(g) order dated 02.07.2018 and entrusted the third respondent for running the sathram on an enhanced rate of Rs.2,15,000 + GST every year. On 02.07.2018 the Board issued order on R1.I529O/14 dated 02.07.2018. In this regard true copy of Order on R1-15290/14 dated 02.07.2018 issued by the Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(c). The period of lease was from 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2021. When the period of lease was expiring in 2021, the additional third respondent submitted another request for extending the period from 01.03.2021 to 29.02.2024. Annexure R3(h) order dated 18.10.2021 was issued by the board after negotiation with the additional third respondent. While so, the additional third respondent submitted a request for reducing the amount prescribed in Annexure R3(h) order dated 18.10.2021. Considering the request submitted by
DBP No.26 of 2023 14 the additional third respondent, Annexure R3(i) order dated 21.10.2022 was issued by the board. By the said order the rent was reduced to Rs.2,65,000/- from Rs.2,70,000/-. Annexure R3(j) agreement was executed between the board and the additional third respondent. The files relating to the above matter would show that the board extended the period of lease after conducting negotiations with the additional third respondent and also taking into consideration the steps taken by the additional third respondent for the reconstruction of the dilapidated building. The board also considered the manner in which the sathram was conducted by the additional third respondent without any complaints whatsoever. Now, the complainant has come forward expressing his interest in applying for the lease of the building in question. So, the board is willing to issue a public tender for letting out the building in question, following the dictum laid down by this Honourable court in the decision in Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board reported in [2022 (4) KLT 798].''
7.
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the 1st respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the additional 2nd respondent Deputy Director and also the learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent.
8.
In the affidavits placed on record by the additional 2nd respondent Deputy Director, various irregularities in the licence agreement with the additional 3rd respondent are pointed out. We do not propose to consider those issues in this DBP, since the accounts of the Cochin Devaswom Board are subjected to audit
DBP No.26 of 2023 15 under the provisions of Chapter XI of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, by the Auditors appointed by this Court under sub-section (4) of Section 102 of the Act, who have to submit audit reports before this Court, as provided under Section 103. Section 105 of the Act deals with rectification of irregularities.
Sub-section (2) of Section 105 provides for surcharge against the Board or its members, as the case may be, in case of misappropriation or willful waste of the fund or gross neglect resulting in loss to the incorporated or unincorporated Devaswoms or institutions under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. In such circumstances, all those issues are left open to be raised for consideration at the appropriate stage, while considering the audit reports.
9.
Now, what remains to be considered is the manner in which ‘Cochin Sathram’ owned by the Cochin Devaswom Board at Varanasi can be leased out by the Cochin Devaswom Board.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant would submit that since the term of Annexure R3(j) lease agreement with the 3rd respondent will be over by 28.02.2024, it is for the Cochin Devaswom Board to initiate appropriate steps to auction the right to run Cochin Sathram at Varanasi by conducting a public auction with proper notice in the newspapers having circulation in Kerala
DBP No.26 of 2023 16 and also at Varanasi.
11. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the said respondent was permitted to occupy the premises on the strength of the license deed, since he had undertaken certain renovation works, though at the expense of the Cochin Devaswom Board.
12. In T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (4) KLT 798 : 2022 (5) KHC SN 8], a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, held that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642], relying on the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65], while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs.
The action of the Board as a trustee cannot be equated to that of mere landlord. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Board would be subserved only if income is generated.
DBP No.26 of 2023 17 13. In T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798], the Division Bench noticed that the major source of revenue of the Cochin Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples and also the rental income generated from the buildings owned by the respective Devaswoms. Therefore, while dealing with the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said building. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease rental or licence fee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms is not lower than the prevailing market rent. The action of the Board in demanding lease rental or licence fee for the buildings owned by the Devaswoms taking into consideration the prevailing market rent cannot be termed as an action of the Board demanding exhorbitant or rack- rent, since, while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. Any default
DBP No.26 of 2023 18 committed by the tenant or licensee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms in payment of the monthly rent or licence fee, electricity charges, water charges, statutory dues, etc. has to be dealt with appropriately, so also the use of the building for another purpose or making material alteration or addition to the building.
In view of the provisions under Section 73A of the Act, the Cochin Devaswom Board is duty bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and employees in the Maramath wing are functioning properly, by taking prompt action against any such default or violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or the licence deed.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that the Board shall take necessary steps to issue a public tender for letting out ‘Cochin Sathram’ at Varanasi, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798].
In the above circumstances, this DBP is disposed of by directing the Cochin Devaswom Board to take necessary steps to for letting out ‘Cochin Sathram’ at Varanasi, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798]. The Board shall file an application before this Court, which shall be numbered as DBA, seeking appropriate orders, after
DBP No.26 of 2023 19 evolving a proper method for letting out ‘Cochin Sathram’ at Varanasi.
Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE Dxy
DBP No.26 of 2023 20 APPENDIX OF DBP 26/2023
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1.9770/07 DATED 24-02-2009 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ANNEXURE R3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1.9770/07 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 27-02-2012 ANNEXURE R3(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1.2339/14 DATED 07-01-2015 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ANNEXURE R3(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1.2309/16 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 16-05-2017 ANNEXURE R3(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED BETWEEN COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AND THE PETITIONER DATED 24-10-2014 ANNEXURE R3(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.R1.15290/14 OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 18-05-2015 ANNEXURE R3(G) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. R1- 15290/14 OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 02-07-2018 ANNEXURE R3(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R1.15290/14 DATE 18-10-2021 OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ANNEXURE R3(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
R1.15290/2019 OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 21-10-2022 ANNEXURE R3(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AND PETITIONER DATED 17.08.2022 ANNEXURE R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER ON R-5742/10 DATED 06/10/14 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER ON R1. 15290/14 DATED 25.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DBP No.26 of 2023 21 ANNEXURE R1 (C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER ON R1-15290/14 DATED 02.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD