TDB briefs Chennithala of flaws in Sooraj’s order

November 24, 2014 01:54 am | Updated November 16, 2021 04:44 pm IST - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM:

The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) is understood to have apprised Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala of the legal lapses in an award of Rs.18.86 crore made by suspended Public Works Department Secretary T.O. Sooraj to a private company contracted for the preparation and packing of Aravana Prasadam at Sabarimala, while the latter was heading the Kerala Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in March 2011.

Sources told The Hindu here that TDB president M.P. Govindan Nair briefed the Home Minister on Saturday of the chinks in the council order. The Home Minister is understood to have directed to furnish a statement of facts about the award to the officers probing the charges against Sooraj. The board had already taken a stance that Sooraj had violated the law in sanctioning the award. The government is learnt to have directed to provide the details soon.

Sooraj, who was suspended from service in the face of corruption charges, while officiating as the council chairman, ordered to pay Rs.18.86 crore to the company contracted for the preparation and packing Aravana from 1999 to 2007. The company approached the council accusing the board of violating certain provisions of a pact and claimed Rs.8.08 crore under various heads.

The council, an appellate body under the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, comprises a Deputy Law Secretary, a representative of the Kerala Small Scale Industries Association, and a bank, but the order of the chairman prevails.

The council passed the order on the complaint of delayed payment for the services rendered to the board for eight years from April 1999. It also ruled that the company was entitled to a future interest of 18 per cent till the date of payment. The agreement struck with the company for eight years from April 13, 1999, itself was found to be defective. The Local Fund Audit wing, in its report submitted to the Kerala High Court on May 26, 2000, had pointed out that the decision to award the contract was “highly irregular” and in violation of the natural principles of striking an agreement.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.