The Kerala High Court has directed the director of the Kerala State Audit department and the head of the finance wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board to file statements on the completion of the board’s audit process.

The finalisation of the audit for the year 2008-2009 has been pending for nearly two decades, holding up the audit process of every succeeding year.

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar noted that what transpired at the board was “precisely the kind of administrative lapse that every public institution must strive to avoid,” while considering a report of the director of Kerala State Audit department, Minimol K.G.

The court noted that measurement books relating to some public works were not produced, reasoning that the records were in the custody of assistant engineers. Cots supplied for the use of police personnel in Sabarimala were defective, and the work was awarded at 65% more than the estimated cost. No inquiry was conducted into the loss of ornaments under the Varkala group of temples.

The necessity of procuring ₹10 lakh worth of steel and granting the payment to a single contractor was not disclosed, and prior approval from the court to authorise such a transaction was not obtained, observed the court.

The court also observed that the majority of the audit objections remain unresolved and that the board had failed to produce accounts before the ombudsman. The court found that specific employees were allegedly responsible for losses to the institution, and recovery proceedings were scheduled to be initiated against them. In some cases, inquiries had been conducted, but reports were not submitted to the ombudsman. There were also cases in which the Works department of the board had executed works without approval from the competent authorities.

Earlier this month, the court had instructed the director to indicate the reasons for the delay in the audit process, the obstacles to completing the process, and measures to ensure that the audits are completed within a reasonable period. 

The director’s report revealed that the delay in settling objections in the audit was due to the board’s failure to respond and provide supporting documents in time. Additionally, the board also failed to initiate corrective action, and in several instances, incomplete and insufficient records necessitated further correspondence between the Audit department and the board.

The court will consider the case on July 15.