DBP No.47 of 2020 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam: In the Matter of Travancore Devaswom Board – TDB Report No.41/2020 in Complaint No.177 of 2019 – Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated – Suppression of the file and non-production of the same by the authorities.

DBP No.47 of 2020 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944 ``` ``` DBP NO. 47 OF 2020 ``` ``` IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD – TDB REPORT NO.41/2020 IN COMPLAINT NO.177 OF 2019 – MATTER RELATING TO THE FIXING OF GROUND RENT FOR THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE BUILT BY THE PETITIONER IN THE LAND OF MAVELIKKARA DEVASWOM – ``` ``` SUPRRESSION OF THE FILE AND NON-PRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ``` ``` THE AUTHORITIES – SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG. ``` ``` ------------ ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SRI. H.N. VIJAYAN, CINDRALLA, EAST FORT, MAVELIKKARA -1 ``` ``` BY ADV.K.SASIKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 003.`** - **`2 THE JOINT DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TDB AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 003`** ``` BY ADVS.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, TDB ``` ## **`SRI S.RAJMOHAN-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER,`** ``` SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE ``` ``` THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ``` ``` ON 07.06.2022, THE COURT ON 19.09.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` DBP No.47 of 2020 2 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This DBP is registered based on TDB Report No.41 of 2020 in Complaint No.177 of 2019 of the learned Ombudsman. The petitioner/complainant, who is in occupation of two shop rooms bearing Nos.2 and 3 in Valiyakulam Shopping Complex owned by Mavelikkara Devaswom under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, filed the said complaint raising certain disputes regarding fixation of rent in respect of an area occupied as godown in the backyard of shop room bearing Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 measuring 18m x 4m. 2. According to the petitioner, he is in occupation of two shop rooms in the said shopping complex since June, 1999, in which he is conducting a provision store. At the time of entrustment of the shop rooms, the Board fixed the monthly rent at Rs.700/per shop room. While conducting the provision store, he occupied an area measuring 18m x 4m in the backyard of the shop rooms, for erecting a temporary shed as a godown. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Mavelikkara forwarded the application made by the petitioner to the Devaswom Commissioner. By the order dated 29.01.2001, the Devaswom DBP No.47 of 2020 3 Commissioner directed the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to take necessary steps. Based on the order of the Devaswom Commissioner, the Assistant Engineer, Mavelikkara Group identified the area. The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner issued Annexure A1 communication dated 17.03.2001 informing the petitioner about the proceedings of the Devaswom Commissioner and the steps taken by the Assistant Engineer in identifying the area for the godown. As per Annexure A1, after completing the work of the shed, as per the instructions of the Assistant Engineer, the petitioner has to execute an agreement with the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, agreeing to pay the monthly rent fixed by the Board. The petitioner was permitted to make an opening from one among the shop rooms, to the proposed godown, on condition that at the time of vacating the shop rooms, the petitioner has to close the said opening. According to the petitioner, he erected a temporary structure under the supervision of the then Assistant Engineer and occupied the same on 01.09.2001, which is being used as a godown for his provisions store. Though it was specified in Annexure A1 that the rent of the structure will be fixed by the Board and the petitioner should execute an agreement with the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, there was no move from the part of the Board to fix the monthly rent of the godown and to DBP No.47 of 2020 4 execute the agreement. On 17.11.2003, the petitioner submitted Annexure A2 request expressing his readiness and willingness to remit monthly rent for the godown regularly and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was remitted along with that request. Annexure A2 request was followed by Annexure A3 request dated 18.03.2016 and Annexure A4 request dated 07.05.2016 addressed to the President of the Board. Those requests were followed by Annexure A5 request dated 22.05.2017, whereby the petitioner agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.650/- and a sum of Rs.1,22,850/- towards arrears of rent from 01.09.2001 till May, 2017. 3. Subsequent to Annexure A5 request, the petitioner received Annexure A6 notice dated 16.05.2018 of the Sub Group Officer, Mavelikkara, whereby he was informed that the Board has fixed the monthly rent of the temporary structure for godown as Rs.650/- with effect from 01.09.2001, with 10% increase every year. On receipt of Annexure A6, the petitioner submitted Annexure A7 reply dated 19.05.2018, wherein it was pointed out that, during the year 2001, there was only 5% increase in monthly rent, every year. Therefore, the arrears for the period covered by Annexure A6 notice comes to Rs.1,30,650/- and the petitioner promised to make a payment of Rs.1,33,000/-. The petitioner expressed his readiness and willingness for enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% every DBP No.47 of 2020 5 year, with effect from 01.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner received Annexure A8 notice dated 10.02.2019 of the Sub Group Officer demanding payment of rent at the rate of Rs.650/- per month from 01.09.2001 with 10% annual increase upto 31.08.2018, with penal interest at the rate of 18%, and the total demand made in the said notice was Rs.3,73,793/-. The petitioner submitted Annexure A9 reply dated 14.02.2019 for fixing the arrears of rent for the said period as Rs.1,50,000/-. He has also submitted Annexure A10 representation dated 27.03.2019 before the President of the Board. The Sub Group Officer again demanded payment of Rs.3,73,793/-, vide Annexure A11 notice dated 08.04.2019. Based on that demand, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide Annexure A12 receipt dated 09.04.2019 and a further sum of Rs.1,73,739/- vide Annexure A13 receipt dated 13.04.2019. The Sub Group Officer, vide notice dated 06.05.2019, demanded a sum of Rs.33,568/- towards arrears of rent for the godown from the month of September, 2018 onwards, together with 18% interest. The petitioner remitted the said amount vide Annexure A15 receipt dated 14.05.2019. Thereafter, the Sub Group Officer issued Annexure A16 communication dated 19.06.2019, whereby the petitioner was required to execute an agreement in respect of the godown, with the Assistant Devaswom DBP No.47 of 2020 6 Commissioner. As demanded in Annexure A6, the petitioner executed Annexure A17 licence deed with the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, for the period from 27.06.2019 to 26.06.2020, fixing a licence fee of Rs.3,621/- for the godown. In terms of Annexure A17 agreement, the petitioner is remitting a sum of Rs.3,621/- as licence fee for the godown. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the demand of penal interest for the monthly rent of the godown for the period from 01.09.2001 till 31.08.2018, demanded in Annexures A8 and A11 notices issued by the Sub Group Officer, is highly arbitrary and illegal. The original rent fixed for the godown in the year 2001 was only Rs.650/-. The rent of the godown is fixed as Rs.3,621/- in the year 2019 unreasonably and unconscionably, while entering into Annexure A17 agreement. On the other hand, the monthly rent of the shop rooms, which were leased out to the petitioner in the year 1990 was Rs.700/- per shop room. After the annual revisions, the monthly rent of those shop rooms in the year 2019 was only Rs.2,545/-. This would show that there is no uniformity in the fixation of the rent of the buildings let out by the Board. The document marked as Annexure A18 is the receipt for payment of Rs.3,621/- towards rent for the godown, for the month of August, 2019. Annexure A19 is the receipt for payment of Rs.2,545/- DBP No.47 of 2020 7 towards rent for shop room bearing No.3, for the month of August, 2019. According to the petitioner, the annual revision of ground rent for the temporary shed constructed for godown should be restricted to 5% every year and the demand for penal interest in Annexures A8 and A11 notices at the rate of 18% is highly arbitrary and illegal. 5. Before the learned Ombudsman, the Travancore Devaswom Board has not chosen to file any reply to the complaint of the petitioner and also the remarks offered by the State Audit. On the complaint made by the petitioner, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Mavelikkara Group submitted Annexure 2 report dated 16.11.2019 before the Devaswom Commissioner. As per the said report, though the petitioner/complainant is occupying the godown from the month of January, 2001 onwards, the rent of the said godown was fixed only by Board order dated 22.01.2019. From the relevant files, it is seen that various reports were submitted before the office of the Devaswom Commissioner and also to the Estate Office for fixing the rent of the said godown. In Annexure O3 reply of the State Audit, it is stated that, despite the request made in the letter dated 22.10.2019, the Devaswom Commissioner failed to provide the records pertaining to the complaint made by the petitioner and no reply was furnished to the State Audit. In the said DBP No.47 of 2020 8 remarks it is stated that the action of the Board is unilateral and the Board has to explain whether there exists any prevailing order for 10% annual increase in rent, during the year 2001. Annexure O3 remarks of the State Audit was followed by Annexure O5 remarks dated 17.09.2020, wherein it is stated that, though the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner has made available for the perusal of the State Audit the available files, no documents relating to the complaint made by of the petitioner were available in that file. Therefore, the learned Ombudsman submitted TDB Report No.41 of 2020, pointing out the default committed by the officials of the Board in not producing the relevant files to the State Audit. 6. The 1[st] respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 05.07.2021, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner/ complainant made unauthorised addition/extension to increase the plinth area of shop rooms 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Devaswom Shopping Complex at Mavelikkara. Consequent upon the actions, penalty was imposed by the Board and the occupant had remitted the penal amount also. Unauthorised addition/extension was found with shop room No.1 (K.Santhosh), shop room Nos.14, 15 and 16 (K.Sasidharan), shop room No.20, 21 and 22 (V.G.Rajesh Kumar), shop room No.28 (Krishnakumar) and the Board had decided to realise amount from the abovesaid persons. Accordingly, Plinth DBP No.47 of 2020 9 Area Report regarding unauthorised constructions was submitted from the office of the Assistant Engineer, Mavelikkara and the Board has examined the same. In the said report, a request was made to the Chief Engineer (General) to grant permission to realise rent as per Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR), arrear amount and penal interest at the rate of 18%. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer (General) placed report No. CE(G)/EO/Rent/ 2021/15 dated 30.03.2021 before the Board. Considering the said report, the Board fixed DSR rent and granted permission to realise the loss from the occupants as follows; Rs.1,88,606/- from K.Santhosh, Rs.3,99,113/from K.Sasidharan, Rs.17,406/from V.C.Rajeshkumar and Rs.9,879/- from Krishnakumar. The said fact was communicated to the Chief Engineer (General), vide Annexure R1(a) letter dated 20.04.2021. On adopting DSR, it was found that the amount remitted by the petitioner/complainant is insufficient. Therefore, the issue regarding the fixation of rent payable by the petitioner is placed in the meeting of the Board scheduled on 14.07.2021. 7. On 05.07.2021, when this DBP came up for ## consideration, this Court passed the following order; “When this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board sought time stating that on the issue involved in the case on hand and DBP No.47 of 2020 10 certain connected issues, a meeting of the Board is going to be convened on 14.07.2021. Normally, we would grant time, as requested, without making any further observations. However, the proceedings before us depict a sorry state of affairs. A document which is produced along with TDB Report No.41 of 2020, viz., proceedings of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, bearing No.989 dated, 17.03.2001, would suggest that the tenant by name Sri. Vijayan was conducting a business in the name and style 'Menaka Stores' in the Mavelikara Devaswom Shopping Complex and he was given permission to construct a godown with a length of 18 metres and a breadth of 4 metres behind the shop rooms let out to him. 2. On a perusal of the said document, we are of the view that either the party concerned or the Devaswom Board, whoever is in possession of its original, shall be made to produce the original before this Court. It is ordered accordingly. To enable its compliance issue notice to the petitioner by Speed Post. At this juncture, we do not propose to make any further observations with respect to the genuineness or otherwise of the said document. If the said document is taken as a genuine one, it would reveal that permission was granted, as sought for by the tenant, to put up a temporary shed and to use it as a godown as early as in the year 2001 and permission was also granted to him to have access to the godown to be constructed, by demolishing the wall of one of the rooms let out to him. The fact is that, no additional rent was fixed by any separate proceedings after the completion of such a construction by the tenant. Needless to say that in such circumstances, till date, it appears that, no rent for occupation of the said additional construction is being charged. In fact, that lead to the preference of a complaint by the tenant. DBP No.47 of 2020 11 3. When this matter is taken up for consideration, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that four similar instances have also been noticed by the Board and in respect of such matters, decisions have already been taken on 24.06.2021. The said submission itself would reveal that in respect of the buildings constructed by the Board, without putting the Board with proper notice, the Devaswom authorities are granting permission to effect additional constructions. Whether any action has been taken by the Board on coming to know about such instances against officers, who on their own, without obtaining the sanction from the Board, granted permission to tenants to do similar things, whether constructions effected based on such unauthorised permissions are of the nature that would interfere with the stability of the building concerned, are matters of importance. 4. After taking a decision in the meeting, now to be held on 14.07.2021, as per the agenda, the Secretary of the Board shall file a detailed affidavit in respect of the aforesaid issues before this Court. We make it clear that we are not directing for filing of an affidavit pertaining only to the building belonging to Mavelikara Devaswom Board Shopping Complex. The authorities competent shall verify whether such instances are happening in buildings belonging to Travancore buildings Devaswom Board. If such instances happened elsewhere, the affidavit should contain details as to the actions taken in such matters. Such an affidavit shall be filed on or before 27.08.2021.” (underline supplied) 8. After the aforesaid order, the 1[st] respondent Board has filed an additional counter affidavit dated 01.11.2021, wherein it is stated that, as per the direction of this Court, the Board has DBP No.47 of 2020 12 directed the Estate Officer to visit the shopping complexes and check its current status. Accordingly, he visited the entire shopping complexes and submitted a report on 15.09.2021. The main focus of the report was whether there is any unauthorised construction anywhere. It is reported that in front of 5 shop rooms in Chengannoor Devaswom Shopping Complex, some space has been extended with tin sheet. In Kamankulangara Devaswom under Karunagappalli Group, in front of 9 shop rooms an average area of 50 to 100 sq.ft. has been extended temporarily. In Padanayarkulangara Devaswom, under Karunagapalli Group, 4 shop rooms have been extended by an average area of 100 sq.ft. with RCC roof. In Kaduthuruthi Devaswom, 1,000 sq. ft. terrace area of the shop room has been covered with GI Sheet. In Mavelikkara Devaswom, 9 shop rooms have been extended by an average area of 50 to 100 sq.ft. with temporary roof. In Oachira Shopping Complex, an area 25 sq.ft. has been extended with temporary roof. Except in Kamankulangara, Puthiyakavu and Oachira Devaswoms and the shop rooms occupied by the petitioner/ complainant in Mavelikkara Devaswom, all extensions are temporary in nature. None of those extensions affects the structure of the building. Extensions do not in any way affect the stability of the building. Such extensions are used to display goods DBP No.47 of 2020 13 in shop rooms. The extensions are not built with the permission of the Local Authorities, which are to be demolished at any moment, if ordered by the Local Authorities. Therefore, no special rent is charged for the extensions or the area of those extensions is included in the agreement. However, in the case of shop rooms as mentioned above, which have been extended by permanent construction, further explanation is sought from the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner concerned. Immediately upon receipt of the same, further action will be taken by the Board. In the present case, petitioner/complainant made extension in the shop room in the year 2001. During the relevant period, the following persons were in charge of Assistant Commissioner Office, Mavelikkara. 1. Sri. N.Sankaran Nair, Sabari, Jawahar Nagar, House No.47, Manayil Kulangara, Thirumullavaram P.O., Kollam-12 2. Sri.M.R.Jaganmohan Das, Murivelil House, Kaithakodi(P.O), Kottathur, Pathanamthitta. They had retired from service long back and their entire pensionary benefits have already been disbursed. After verification of the records, the complaint made by the petitioner/complainant will be reconsidered by the Board, after rendering him an opportunity of being heard, and fresh orders will be passed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. DBP No.47 of 2020 14 9. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that, in future, if any alterations are made in the shopping complex without prior permission of the Board, it will be treated as the personal liability of the officers who are in charge of that shopping complex, and strict departmental action will be initiated against them and penal liability will be fixed against them. 10. On 24.09.2021, when this DBP came up for consideration, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to proceedings No.989 dated 17.03.2001 of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 12.10.2021. 11. 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 subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act, substituted by the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, Part I of the Act shall extend to Travancore, Part II of the Act shall extend to Cochin and Part III of the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Kerala, excluding the Malabar District. 12. Chapter II of the Act deals with the Travancore DBP No.47 of 2020 15 Devaswom. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in Board. As per Section 3, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 M.E. and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M.E. which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, except the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple, and the management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. 13. Section 4 of the Act deals with constitution of the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold and acquire properties for and on behalf of the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments under the management of the Board. 14. Section 15 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15, subject to the provisions of Chapter III of Part I, all rights, authority and DBP No.47 of 2020 16 jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, in respect of Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per subsection (2) of Section 15, the Board shall exercise all powers of direction, control and supervision over the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments under their jurisdiction. 15. 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. Section 16 of the Act deals with supervision and control by the Board. As per Section 16, 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 DBP No.47 of 2020 17 and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 16. Section 24 of the Act deals with maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of Devaswom Fund. As per Section 24, the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e. incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational upliftment, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 17. Section 27 of the Act deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 27, immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom Vaga or Devaswom Poramboke and such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after the 30[th] Meenam, 1097 corresponding to the 12[th] April, 1922, shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. 18. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of DBP No.47 of 2020 18 Devaswoms. As per Section 31, 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. 19. 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 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 DBP No.47 of 2020 19 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 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 DBP No.47 of 2020 20 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) ## 20. 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 are required 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 ‘fences 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. DBP No.47 of 2020 21 ## 21. 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]** 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 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 therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. ## 22. In **Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022** **SCC OnLine Ker 1642]** [judgment dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2254 of 2022] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) DBP No.47 of 2020 22 constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021, for Rs. 2,41,000/-. The average monthly income generated from the said building constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board by spending several lakhs of rupees was only Rs. 10,000/-. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **M.V. Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** this Court held that, while auctioning the right for running that sadyalayam, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income to the Board is generated from the said building. In case of any default committed by the successful bidder in remitting the balance auction amount, electricity charges or any other statutory dues payable as per the tender conditions, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have to take prompt action against such bidder and the said fact has to be promptly reported to the concerned officer in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 23. In **Abu K.S. [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642]** the writ petitioner, 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., DBP No.47 of 2020 23 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against the successful bidder 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 such circumstances, in the said decision, this Court deprecated in the strongest words the conduct of the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer and also the concerned officers in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board in taking no action against the successful bidder, who was a defaulter. In the said decision, this Court found that, the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. Since, such irregularities in the conduct of auction for running auditoriums/sadyalayams in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be permitted in future, this Court directed Registry to initiate _suo motu_ proceedings in the that matter. 24. In **Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker** **611]** a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with the Kuthaka right for sale of pooja items DBP No.47 of 2020 24 in Valliamkavu Devi Temple under the Management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the said decision, this Court held that, the properties of deities and temples are required to be protected and safeguarded from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. Persons entrusted with the duty to manage such properties should be vigilant to prevent such usurpation or encroachment. When such usurpation or encroachment is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The officers concerned and also the 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 usurpation or encroachment, wrongful claims or misappropriation. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. If any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or the Administrative Officer, in order to protect and safeguard the DBP No.47 of 2020 25 properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. 25. In **V. Muraleedharan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board** [Judgment dated 25.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 32975 of 2015] the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the writ petitioners were occupiers of different shop rooms in a shopping complex owned by the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Exhibit P8 series of orders, they have been required to enhance the security deposit and the amounts to be paid for occupation. Before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P7 judgment dated 07.10.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 25586 of 2012. The Division Bench noticed that, the said judgment was issued essentially on consent of the Board and the concession made by the Board was only for renewal for a period upto 2012. Therefore, Exhibit P7 judgment is no answer for any demand that the Travancore Devaswom Board may make in relation to occupation charges for buildings or rooms belonging to and under its control. The Division noticed that, it cannot also ignore the pristine principle that all Devaswom lands vest in Deities and Travancore Devaswom Board are essentially trustees. Therefore, the action of trustees cannot be equated to that of mere landlords. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of DBP No.47 of 2020 26 the Devaswom Boards would be subserved only if income is generated. 26. In **T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (5) KHC SN 8 : 2022 (4) KLT 798]** , 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 [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. 27. In **T. Krishnakumar [2022 (5) KHC SN 8]** , the Division Bench noticed that the major source of revenue of 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 DBP No.47 of 2020 27 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, 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 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, DBP No.47 of 2020 28 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. 28. In the instant case, the petitioner/complainant, who is the occupant of shop room Nos.2 and 3 in Valiyakulam Shopping Complex owned by Mavelikkara Devaswom under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, is in occupation of an area measuring 18m x 4m, in the backyard of shop room bearing Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, as the godown of his provision store. He is in occupation of the shop room Nos.2 and 3 since June, 1999. Based on an application made by him, by the proceedings of the Devaswom Commissioner, the concerned Assistant Engineer was directed to identify the area for godown. After completing the construction, as per the instructions of the connered Assistant Engineer, he has to execute an agreement with the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, agreeing to pay the monthly rent fixed by the Board. He constructed the structure for godown and occupied the same from 01.09.2001 onwards, without paying any amount towards rent or executing an agreement with the Board. By Annexure A5 request dated 22.05.2017, the petitioner agreed to pay rent at the rate of DBP No.47 of 2020 29 Rs.650/- per month with arrears of rent from 01.09.2001 onwards. According to the petitioner, since the monthly rent of the godown was not fixed and the agreement was not executed, he submitted Annexure A2 to A4 requests. As discernible from Annexure A6 notice dated 18.05.2018 of the Sub Group Officer, Mavelikkara, the Board fixed the monthly rent of the temporary structure for godown as Rs.650/-, with effect from 01.09.2001, with 10% increase every year. The demand made in Annexure A8 notice dated 10.02.2019 of the Sub Group Officer is at the rate of Rs.650/- per month from 01.09.2001, with 10% annual increase, with penal interest at the rate of 18%. It was followed by Annexure A11 notice dated 08.04.2019. As evidenced by Annexure A12 receipt dated 09.04.2019 and Annexure A13 receipt dated 13.04.2019, the petitioner had already remitted a total sum of Rs.3,73,793/-, towards the demand made in Annexure A11 notice. 29. It is stated in the counter affidavit dated 05.07.2021 of the 1[st] respondent Board that, the Board after considering the plinth area report of the Assistant Engineer, Mavelikkara and the report dated 30.03.2021 of the Chief Engineer (General) granted permission to realise rent as per Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR), arrear amount and penal interest at the rate of 18% in respect of shop room No.1 (K.Santhosh), shop room Nos.14, 15 and 16 DBP No.47 of 2020 30 (K.Sasidharan), shop room No.20, 21 and 22 (V.G.Rajesh Kumar), shop room No.28 (Krishnakumar). Considering the said report, the Board fixed DSR rent and granted permission to realise Rs.1,88,606/- from K.Santhosh, Rs.3,99,113/- from K.Sasidharan, Rs.17,406/from V.C.Rajeshkumar and Rs.9,879/from Krishnakumar. The said fact was communicated to the Chief Engineer (General), vide Annexure R1(a) letter dated 20.04.2021. On adopting DSR, it was found that the amount remitted by the petitioner/complainant is insufficient. Therefore, the issue regarding the fixation of rent payable by the petitioner is placed in the meeting of the Board scheduled on 14.07.2021. 30. In the order dated 05.07.2021, this Court noticed that in respect of the buildings constructed by the Board, without putting the Board with proper notice, the Devaswom authorities are granting permission to effect additional constructions. Whether any action has been taken by the Board on coming to know about such instances against officers, who on their own, without obtaining the sanction from the Board, granted permission to tenants to do similar things, whether constructions effected based on such unauthorised permissions are of the nature that would interfere with the stability of the building concerned, are matters of importance. As stated in the additional counter affidavit dated DBP No.47 of 2020 31 01.11.2021, filed by the 1[st] respondent Board, the Estate Officer inspected the entire shopping complexes and submitted a report on 15.09.2021, reporting that in front of 5 shop rooms in Chengannoor Devaswom Shopping Complex, some space has been extended with tin sheet. In Kamankulangara Devaswom under Karunagappalli Group, in front of 9 shop rooms an average area of 50 to 100 sq.ft. has been extended temporarily. In Padanayarkulangara Devaswom, under Karunagapalli Group, 4 shop rooms have been extended by an average area of 100 sq.ft. with RCC roof. In Kaduthuruthi Devaswom, 1,000 sq. ft. terrace area of the shop room has been covered with GI Sheet. In Mavelikkara Devaswom, 9 shop rooms have been extended by an average area of 50 to 100 sq.ft. with temporary roof. In Oachira Shopping Complex, an area 25 sq.ft. has been extended with temporary roof. Except in Kamankulangara, Puthiyakavu and Oachira Devaswoms and the shop rooms occupied by the petitioner/ complainant in Mavelikkara Devaswom, all extensions are temporary in nature. In the additional counter affidavit dated 01.11.2021, it is stated that, the extensions are not built with the permission of the Local Authorities, which are to be demolished at any moment, if ordered by the Local Authorities. Therefore, no special rent is charged for the extensions or the area of those extensions is included in the agreement. DBP No.47 of 2020 32 However, in the case of shop rooms as mentioned above, which have been extended by permanent construction, further explanation is sought from the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner concerned. Immediately upon receipt of the same, further action will be taken by the Board. The petitioner/complainant made extension in the shop room in the year 2001. After verification of the records, the complaint made by the petitioner/complainant will be reconsidered by the Board, after rendering him an opportunity of being heard, and fresh orders will be passed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that, in future, if any alterations are made in the shopping complex without prior permission of the Board, it will be treated as the personal liability of the officers who are in charge of that shopping complex, and strict departmental action will be initiated against them and penal liability will be fixed against them. 31. The major source of revenue of Travancore 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 DBP No.47 of 2020 33 owned by the Devaswoms, Travancore 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 exorbitant 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 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 15A of the Act, Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and employees in the Maramath wing are functioning properly, by taking prompt action DBP No.47 of 2020 34 against any such default or violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or the licence deed. 32. As can be seen from the additional counter affidavit dated 01.11.2021 filed by the 1[st] respondent Board the extensions in the shopping complexes in Kamankulangara, Puthiyakavu and Oachira Devaswoms and also the shop rooms occupied by the petitioner/complainant in Mavelikkara Devaswom, are not temporary structures, which are made without obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Local Authority. In the case of the petitioner, for a considerably long period, the rent/licence fee for the additional structure used as godown for his provision store was not even demanded by the 1[st] respondent Board. As discernible from the materials on record, the monthly rent for the godown was fixed as Rs.650/-, with effect from 01.09.2001, which is the rate of rent agreed by the petitioner in Annexure A5 request dated 22.05.2017. 33. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, while leasing out buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the 1[st] respondent Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. The lease rental or licence fee of such buildings shall not be lower than the prevailing market rent or licence fee. No tenant or licensee can be permitted DBP No.47 of 2020 35 to have additional construction/extension to the premises in question, without the prior permission of the 1[st] respondent Board. Any such additional construction/extension can be made only with the approval of the concerned Engineer in the Maramath wing of the Board and after obtaining necessary building permit from the concerned Local Authority. Before executing fresh lease deed or licence agreement or even at the time of its renewal the competent authority in the Maramath wing of the Board has to measure the area of the building or shop room and ensure that no additional construction/extension is made by the tenant or the licensee, without the prior permission of the Board. He shall also ensure that any such additional construction/extension made in the premises in question is after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Local Authority. In the above circumstances, this DBP is disposed of by directing the 1[st] respondent Board and its officials to take necessary steps to fix rent/licence fee for all the shops/buildings owned by Devaswoms under its management, at the prevailing market rate. The area of the premises in question shall be measured by the competent authority in the Maramath wing of the Board, at the time of execution/renewal of the lease deed/licence agreement or while granting a fresh lease/licence. Any additional construction/ DBP No.47 of 2020 36 extension made by the tenants/licensee, without prior permission of the 1[st] respondent Board and obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Local Authority shall be demolished, without any further delay and the loss sustained to the Board on account of occupation of such unauthorised construction/extension by the tenant/licensee has to be recovered from him, at the rate equal to the prevailing market rent/licence fee. The 1[st] respondent Board shall take necessary steps in this regard against the petitioner/complainant and also other tenants/licensees of buildings/shop rooms owned by Devaswoms under its management, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **Suneesh K.S. [ILR (2022) 1 Ker. 1091]** and **T. Krishnakumar [2022 (5) KHC SN 8]** . Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. **==> picture [440 x 33] intentionally omitted <==** ## Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** ## Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** bkn/- DBP No.47 of 2020 37 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONERS ANNEXURES : NIL`** ## **`RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES :`** ``` ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/04/2021 ISSUED BY THE BOARD TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL). ``` |**`ANNEXURE A1`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBER 989 DATED`**| |---|---| ||**`17-3-2001 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM`**| ||**`COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER`**| |**`ANNEXURE A2`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-11-2003`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE`**| ||**`ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MAVELIKKARA`**| |**`ANNEXURE A3`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18-`**| ||**`2-2016 FORWARDED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE`**| ||**`PRESIDENT OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD`**| |**`ANNEXURE A4`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07-`**| ||**`05-2016 FORWARDED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE`**| ||**`PRESIDENT OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD`**| |**`ANNEXURE A5`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-`**| ||**`5-2017`**| |**`ANNEXURE A6`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16-5-2018`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA`**| ||**`TO THE COMPLAINANT`**| |**`ANNEXURE A7`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19-5-2018`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`SUB GROUP OFFICER`**| |**`ANNEXURE A8`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.40 DATED 10-2-`**| ||**`2019 ISSUED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER TO THE`**| ||**`COMPLAINANT`**| |**`ANNEXURE A9`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14-2-2019`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE SUB`**| ||**`GROUP OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA`**| |**`ANNEXURE A10`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-`**| ||**`3-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE`**| ||**`PRESIDENT OF THE TDB`**| |**`ANNEXURE A11`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8-4-2019`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER MAVELIKKARA`**| DBP No.47 of 2020 38 - **`ANNEXURE A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 9-4-2019 FOR PAYMENT OF RS.2,00,000/-`** - **`ANNEXURE A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13-4-2019 FOR PAYMENT OF RS.1,73,739/-`** - **`ANNEXURE A14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.83 DATED 6-52019 ISSUED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA TO THE COMPLAINANT`** - **`ANNEXURE A15 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14-5-2019 FOR PAYMENT OF RS.33,568/-`** - **`ANNEXURE A16 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-6-2019 FORWARDED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA DEVASWOM TO THE COMPLAINANT`** - **`ANNEXURE A17 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27-6-2019 EXECUTED BY THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MAVELIKKARA GROUP`** - **`ANNEXURE A18 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5-8-2019 FOR PAYMENT OF RS.3,621/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT FOR THE GODOWN IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2019`** - **`ANNEXURE A19 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5-8-2019 FOR PAYMENT OF RS.2,545/- TOWARDS RENT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2019 IN RESPECT SHOP ROOM NO.3`** ## **`OMBUDSMAN’S EXHIBITS:`** ``` ANNEXURE O1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.08.2019 ANNEXURE O2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MAVELIKKARA ANNEXURE O3 COPY OF THE REMARKS OF THE AUDIT DATED 21.11.2019 ANNEXURE O4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.11.2019 ANNEXURE O5 COPY OF THE AUDIT REMARKS DATED 17.09.2020. ```