Dismissed

American Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2019WP(C)/9526/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the opinion of the water authority regarding proposed land acquisition was filed. The Court found the petition premature, noting remedies await the issuance of notification, and dismissed the plea allowing future objections.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without further orders; liberty reserved to raise objections against the notification.

American Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019(M)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 AMERICAN ENGINEERING PVT. LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING IS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PANNIKOTTU BUILDINGS PURAMATTOM P.O, PURAMATTOM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689543, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.JOSE PANNIKOTTU, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.J. KURIAN, RESIDING AT PANNIKOTTU HOUSE, PURAMATTOM P.O, PURAMATTOM, TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689543.

¶8

2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY SERVIVES LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING IS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PANNIKOTTU BUILDINGS, PURAMATTOM P.O, PURAMATTOM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689543, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.MRS. AMMINI KURIAN, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O. LATE P.J. KURIAN, RESIDING AT PANNIKOTTU HOUSE, PURAMATTOM P.O, PURAMATTOM, TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689543.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA SRI.NABIL KHADER

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA COLLECTORATE P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA689647.

¶13

3 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 2

¶15

4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶16

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, ADOOR, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691523.

¶17

6 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶18

7 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTORL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110032, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶19

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3-5 BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN R6 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY

¶20

SR.GP.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR;SC R7 S.SUJIN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners have approached this

¶25

Court impugning Ext.P16 proceedings of the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority, as per which, certain properties owned by the petitioners have been, in principle, decided to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

¶26

Resettlement Act, 2013, for the purpose of commencement of a Water Treatment Plant.

¶27

The petitioners say that when they came to be aware that the Water

¶28

Authority was attempting to acquire their property, they approached this Court and

¶29

obtained Ext.P9 judgment; wherein the

¶30

Managing Director of Water Authority was directed to consider their objections also before taking any further action. The petitioners say that it is pursuant to the directions in Ext.P9 judgment that Ext.P16 proceedings have been now issued by the

¶31

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 4

¶32

Managing Director, however, without considering any of their objections in its proper perspective. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P16 be set aside.

¶33

Smt.Mary Benjamin - learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, submits that a challenge to

¶34

Ext.P16 is not tenable in law, since it is

¶35

only the proceedings of the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority and the petitioners can obtain any locus only when the acquisition proceedings are commenced. She says that Ext.P16 is, at the best, the opinion of the Kerala Water Authority based on which a requisition for acquisition will be made to the competent Authorities; and therefore, that the

¶36

challenge of the petitioners at this stage is only in the nature of preemptive attempt to stop the Kerala Water Authority from even making a proper requisition in terms of law.

¶37

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 5

¶38

Smt.Mary Benjamin adds that since

¶39

a learned Judge of this Court had, in

¶40

Ext.P9 judgment, directed the Kerala Water

¶41

Authority to consider the petitioners objections, the same has been done, which is reflected in Ext.P16 and therefore, that this Court may not entertain this writ petition any further.

¶42

The learned Senior Government

¶43

Pleader-Shri.Rajasekharan Nair, appearing

¶44

on behalf of the official respondents, also adopts most of the submissions of Smt.Mary Benjamin, adding that on account of this writ petition the entire work of acquisition with respect to the large extents required for the construction of a Water Treatment Plant has been held up and

¶45

that this is now detrimentally effecting the residents of seven different Panchayat. He also thus prays that this

¶46

writ petition be closed, without issuing any orders in favour of the petitioners.

¶47

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 6

¶48

When I consider the afore submissions, I find some force in the contentions impelled by Smt.Mary Benjamin because, what has been recorded in Ext.P16

¶49

is only the opinion of the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority with respect to the proposal made by them for acquisition of certain extents of land for the purpose of commencement of a Water Treatment Plant. I fail to understand how the petitioners can obtain locus to challenge Ext.P16, particularly when it is clear that even the preliminary work for acquisition of the land has not begun.

¶50

This is more so because, as is now well established, the petitioners certainly will obtain statutory and other remedies with respect to any notification which has been issued or to be issued by the competent Authorities under the applicable Act; and at that time, they certainly will have the liberty of raising

¶51

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 7

¶52

all contentions and assertions as are

¶53

raised in this writ petition also.

¶54

In the afore circumstances, reserving

¶55

liberty to the petitioners to raise all their objections and to impel all their contentions against the notification to be issued or which has been issued by the competent Requisitioning Authority, in terms of law, I close this writ petition without any further orders and without entering into any of the dialectical contentions of the parties on its merits.

¶56

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

MC/28.11.19

¶61

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 8

¶62

APPENDIX

¶63

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION DATED 01.12.2004 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER COMPANY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION DATED 15.05.2017 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 26.09.2017 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF TERM SHEET DATED 02.02.2018 ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER DATED 03.08.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF TENDER SUMMARY DATED 14.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.05.2018 FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2018 IN WPC NO.5149/2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.12.2018 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PRACTICAL HANDBOOK ON PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT MADE BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT ON SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF PAMPA RIVER AND ITS POLLUTION.

¶65

WP(C).No.9526 OF 2019 9

¶66

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT MADE BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.SO 1533 DATED 14.09.2006 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 01.03.2019 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER COMPANY. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 31.7.2018 IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY NO.2055 MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

American Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

American Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramanathan Vs the District Collector, Kasaragod

M.B Sathi Vs the District Collector

Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs the Secretary, Valappad Grama Panchayath

P.Shadhi Vs District Collector

M.Nassar Vs the Secretary

Jomey Chandran Vs Corporation of Kochi