SUO MOTU v. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

satisfied. The learned State Attorney sought time to confirm the position. It was added by the learned State Attorney that the amount mentioned as cost for installation of the camera which was disputed on the last occasion from the part of the Board, is in SSCR NO.8 of 2016 10 respect of the 2nd phase from Pamba to Chalakayam; whereas the amount shown in the earlier proceeding was in respect of installation from Sannidhanam to Pandithavalam. The procurement of all materials/ equipments and the installation shall be reported before this Court.

#8. On 13.11.2017, when this SSCR was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that the particulars of various equipments purchased and stated as installed are not given by the Police. The learned State Attorney submitted that all the requirements have been satisfied and that most of the equipments have already been installed. The remaining items are stated as being erected/ installed and that the steps in this regard will be completed before the commencement of Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season. The learned State Attorney submitted further that, particulars in this regard shall be furnished in the form of a statement before this Court.

#9. On 22.06.2017, an affidavit dated 17.06.2017 on SSCR NO.8 of 2016 11 behalf of the Devaswom Board has been placed on record, producing therewith Annexures A to J orders of this Court. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of that affidavit read thus; ’’8. It is submitted that from 2010 till November, 2016 the Board has been meeting the expenses for the AMC/re installation charges of the security equipments. The details of the same are as follows: Year AMC Charges Reinstallation Charges 2010-11 Rs.39,49,654/- 2011-12 Rs.42,65,112/- 2012-13 Rs.43,44,769/- 2013-14 Rs.44,00,000/- 2014-15 Rs.33,18,012/- 2015-16 Rs.40,54,011/- Rs.8,75,000/- Rs.8,75,000/- Rs.8,91,342/- Rs.8,91,342/- Rs.8,91,326/- Rs.9,04,352/- Total Rs.2,43,31,559/- Rs.53,28,362/- In terms of Annexure- F order dated 17.11.2015 the Board is entitled to refund of the said amounts. It is further submitted that till this date the Board has not received the excess amount paid by it towards purchase of the security equipments and ordered to be refunded as per Annexure-G order. Though the Chief Engineer (General) of the Board by his letters dated 04.04.2016 and 01.09.2016 had brought to the notice of the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (G) Department, no action has been taken by the State Government till date to refund the aforementioned amounts. A copy of the letters dated

04.04.2016 and 01.09.2016 of the Chief Engineer (General) are produced herewith and marked as Annexures H & I. SSCR NO.8 of 2016 12

#9. It is submitted that the State Police Chief had through the Special Commissioner sought for a direction through the Travancore Devaswom Board for purchase of bullet cameras valued at Rs.2 crores approximately. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala had forwarded the said request of the State Police Chief as per report numbered as SSCR No.5 of 2016. This Hon’ble Court after considering the said report and the earlier orders in Report No.57 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and DBP No. 42 of 2009 disposed of SSCR No.5 of 2016 as per an order dated 28.09.2016 directing the State Govt. to procure the necessary equipments and that the Board would have to meet 25% of the cost of the said equipments. A copy of the order dated 28.09.2016 in SSCR No.5 of 2016 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-J.

#10. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the request of the State Police Chief as appended to the report of the Special Commissioner without referring to the earlier orders of this Hon’ble Court does not merit any consideration. It is pertinent to state here that this Hon’ble Court as per an order dated 03.11.2016 had ordered that the pendency of the report would not stand in the way of the State Govt. procuring such of those equipments required as per the request of the State Police Chief and that an affidavit of the State Govt, regarding the details of the equipments procured was to be filed. However the State Govt. has till date not filed any affidavit in terms of the directions SSCR NO.8 of 2016 13 contained in the order dated 03.11.2016. The Board bonafide beliefs that the State Govt. had not purchased any of the security equipments covered by the request of the State Police Chief.

#11. This Hon’ble Court as per an order dated 27.03.2017 had directed the Board to furnish the details of the amounts, if any, paid by the Board to the State Govt. in connection with the festival season every year at Sabarimala and if so under which heads. It is submitted that the Board had during the just concluded festival season paid a total amount of Rs.14,33,99,193/- to the State Govt/other departments under the State Govt., details of which are as follows: Sabarimala Sanitation Society Rs.1,00,00,000.00 Food & Safety Department Rs.4,08,971.00 Legal Metrology State Police Forest RAF BSNL Kerala Water Authority KSEB Total Rs.24,865.00 Rs.63,31,687.00 Rs.46,670.00 Rs.15,600.00 Rs.5,62,064.00 Rs.40,00,000.00 Rs.12,70,09,336.00 Rs.14,83,99,193.00

#10. On behalf of the 2nd respondent State, the Chief Secretary to Government has sworn to an affidavit dated

08.07.2017. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that affidavit read thus; ’’2. I submit that the State Government had taken all steps the seriousness required for purchasing and SSCR NO.8 of 2016 14 maintaining of security equipments at Sabarimala and allied places. With respect to the purchase of security equipments at Sabarimala, the State Police Chief submitted a report dated 23.09.2016 pointing out that some of the security equipments which are being used at Sabarimala and allied places requires replacement as many of them have become redundant due to advance technology. He submitted a list of equipments to be purchased as Annexure A to the report and also the equipments to be repaired and maintained as Annexure B. The total approximate estimated cost of the equipments purchased was Rs.11,36,31,747/- and the total estimated cost of maintenance was shown as Rs.42 Lakhs. The said report of the State Police Chief was submitted before this Court by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala along with his report dated 01.10.2016. True copy of the report dated

01.10.2016 along with the report of the State Police Chief regarding the estimated cost of purchasing new security equipments and maintenance of the existing security equipments is produced herewith and marked as Annexure I.

#3. The Government of Kerala considered the necessity of purchasing new security equipments and maintenance of the existing equipments and issued G.O.(Rt)171/2017/ Home dated 23.01.2017 according administrative sanction for purchasing security equipments and for using the amount for repair and maintenance. The State Police Chief SSCR NO.8 of 2016 15 was directed to move for additional funds. True copy of the G.O.(Rt)No.171/2017/Home dated 23.01.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure II.

#4. The Government viewed the issue of security of Sabarimala with all seriousness and had done everything necessary for the same. This respondent called for a report from the State Police Chief regarding the installation and maintenance of security equipments at Sabarimala and the State Police Chief submitted a report dated 03.07.2017 narrating the actions he had taken for installation and commissioning of modern security cameras. It is reported that the installation is completed and the system is fully functional and completion certificates is issued by M/s. Keltron. True copy of the report submitted by the Director General of Police and the State Police Chief to the Additional Chief Secretary to Home is produced herewith and marked as Annexure III.

#5. It is reiterated that the Government of Kerala has always taken all steps without any reservation in the matter of security of Sabarimala and has from time to time purchased and maintained security equipments without waiting for the fund being released by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

#6. Without prejudice to the expenditure being sanctioned by the Government of Kerala, it is submitted that further decision will also be taken with respect to the continued maintenance of equipments and purchase of new equipments at Sabarimala which will be recurring every year. Government is initiating discussions with the Travancore SSCR NO.8 of 2016 16 Devaswom Board with regard to sharing of the cost in the light of the observations of the Honourable Court in its judgement dated 03.11.2016.’’

#11. On behalf of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, an affidavit dated 30.10.2017 has been sworn to by its Secretary. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of that affidavit read thus; ’’4. As regards the list of the equipments intended to be purchased pursuant to the administrative sanction accorded State Government per G.O.(Rt) No.2496/2017/Home dated 23.09.2017 it is respectfully submitted that the State Government has accorded such sanction even without verifying the factual position. The equipments intended to be purchased in terms of the above sanction are purportedly the equipments referred to by the State Police Chief as per his letter dated 23.09.2016 addressed to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala and which is the basis of the above report SSCR No.8/2016. A perusal of the letter dated 23.09.2016 will disclose that among the various items intended to be purchased, the State Police Chief had intended to purchase 35 security cameras total value of which is shown to be Rs.2,53,26,747/-. It is respectfully submitted that the issue pertaining to purchase of 35 security cameras was the subject matter of SSCR No.5 of 2016. This Hon’ble Court by Annexure-J order dated 28.09.2016 accorded sanction for SSCR NO.8 of 2016 17 purchasing the said cameras and the Board was directed to effect payment of 25% of the cost to be incurred by the State Government in this regard. It is not in dispute that in due compliance with the direction of this Hon’ble Court dated 28.09.2016 in SSCR No.8/2016 the Board had effected payment of an amount of Rs.63,31,687/- towards 25% of the value of the 35 security cameras. Thus it is evident that the security cameras shown in the letter of the State Police Chief dated 23.9.2016 has to be deleted, whereby the total value of the equipments intended as per the said letter would also come down. The calculation is as follows: The total cost of equipments to be 11,36,31,747.00 purchased for the year of 2017-18 as informed by the police department Less the cost of 35 Nos. Of Security 2,53,26,747.00 Camera Actual cost of equipments to be 8,83,05,000.00 purchased 25% of Rs.8,83,05,000 2,20,76,250.00 contributed by the board Actual payment made by the Board 2,50,00,000.00 Excess amount paid by the Board 29,23,750.00 Thus an amount of Rs.29,23,750/- has to be refunded by the Government under this head.

#5. It is submitted that if the remaining equipments are really intended, the Board is liable to meet the 25% of the expense incurred for the same. I further respectfully submit that SSCR NO.8 of 2016 18 inspite of the order dated 3.11.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above case directing the State Government to purchase such of those equipments found necessary in terms of the request made by the State Police Chief, the very fact that no equipment has been purchased till date goes to show that there is no necessity for such purchase as intended. It is further submitted that in due compliance with the direction of this Hon’ble Court dated 25.9.2017 the Board has effected payment of an amount of Rs.2.5 crores to the State Government. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the State Government to effect purchase of the equipments without any further delay.

#6. The contentions in Para 9 of the affidavit is not correct and hence denied. As per the order dated 17-11-2015 in D.B.A No.157, D.B.P. No 42 and S.S.C.R.No.1 of 2009, this Hon’ble Court had ordered that "the entire AMC has to be expended bythe Government, more particularly because as has been already found through the earlier orders, provision of security is entirely a responsibility of the State Government. Therefore, the A.M.C for all the equipments, whether they are purchased by the State Government or by the TDB shall be footed by the State Government". In the light of the said order, it is submitted that the Board is entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,96,59,921/- from the Government towards the Annual Maintenance Charge and the re-installation charges which was already paid by the Board to M/s Keltron. SSCR NO.8 of 2016 19 The year wise expenditure is tabulated as follows: Year A.M.C. Charges in Rs. Reinstallation Charges in Rs. 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total 39,49,654/- 42,65,112/- 43,44,769/- 44,00,000/- 33,18,012/- 40,54,011/- 8,75,000/- 8,75,000/- 8,91,342/- 8,91,342/- 8,91,326/- 9,04,352/- 2,43,31,559/- 53,28,362/- Grand Total Thus an amount of Rs.2,96,59,921 has to be refunded by 2,96,59,921/- the Government under this head. Thus the Board is entitled to claim the total amount of refund of Rs.3,92,40,334/- (Rs.66,56,663 + Rs.2,96,59,921 + Rs.29,23,750 = Rs.3,92,40,334/-) from the Government.

#7. Hence it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the State Government to pay an amount of Rs.2,96,59,921/- to the Board towards the cost of annual maintenance charge already paid to M/s Keltron by the Board and to refund of an amount of Rs.66,56,663/- received in excess towards the purchase of the security equipments in 2009 and to refund of an amount of Rs.29,23,750/ received in excess amount towards the purchase of equipment for the year of 2017-18, totally amounting to Rs. 3,92,40,334/-.’’

#12. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader and SSCR NO.8 of 2016 20 also Adv. Sayujya Radhakrishnan, the learned Amicus Curiae for the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala.

#13. 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. As per the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms shall vest in Travancore Devaswom Board. Sabarimala Devaswom is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the Act, under Chengannur Group, Pathanamthitta Taluk.

#14. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with the duties of the Board. As per Section 15A of the Act, 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) SSCR NO.8 of 2016 21 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.

#15. Sabarimala is situated in a difficult forest terrain prone to natural disasters. Sabarimala and its vicinity are a Special Security Zone under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, vide G.O.(Ms.)No.74/2024/Home dated 14.10.2024 issued by the State Government, in order to exercise the powers under Section 83(2) of the said Act, to ensure a safe, secure and hassle-free pilgrimage. The management of Virtual-Q system for Sabarimala darshan is governed by the directions contained in the order of this Court in Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (7) KHC SN 5]. As directed in that order, verification of Virtual-Q tickets and other related matters are the responsibilities of the Kerala Police, as part of crowd management.

#16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the issues involved in this SSCR can be directed to be considered SSCR NO.8 of 2016 22 in a joint meeting convened by the Chief Secretary to Government with the Special Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, which shall be attended by the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, the Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board and also the Chief Police Co-ordinator, Sabarimala. In such circumstances, this SSCR is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent Chief Secretary to Government to convene a joint meeting, as stated hereinbefore, to resolve the issues involved in this SSCR, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Dxy Sd/- MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE