Disposed

Siddique Babu I. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2020WP(C)/15229/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest writ petition regarding safety hazards posed by annealed glass in buildings. Court directed Principal Secretary to consider petitioner's representations on regulating glass usage within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's representations and guidelines to regulate glass usage in buildings.

Siddique Babu I. Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942

¶9

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

SIDDIQUE BABU I. AGED 56 YEARS NEW TECH INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS, 1ST FLOOR, SALIM CHAMBERS, SALIM RAJAN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 017

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SMT.P.USHAKUMARI

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, STATUE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695 001

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, STATUE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001

¶16

3 CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶17

R1-R3 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

JUDGMENT

S.MANIKUMAR,CJ

Short facts leading to this public interest writ petition are as here under;

¶24

Petitioner is a socially spirited entrepreneur, who is considered as one of the experts in the field of glass fitting and facade industry. Petitioner has filed this public interest litigation to invite the attention of this Court to an accident met by one Beena Jiju Paul, aged 46 years old, who bled to death after running head on into the glass door of the Bank of Baroda, Perumbavoor Branch, Ernakulam on 15.6.2020 due to the use of substandard and dangerous annealed glass for the door. Print out of the newspaper reports published in the New Indian Express is produced as Ext.P1.

¶25

Petitioner has submitted that the above tragedy is due to the indiscriminate use of unsafe annealed glass in the transparent front door of entry and exit. According to him, these types of unsafe, rather dangerous, annealed glass doors are there in public, private, domestic and commercial buildings. He further submitted that, such doors are used with the absolute knowledge that it is likely to cause death or such bodily injury. Hence those, who are responsible for the use of this dangerous fittings are liable to be prosecuted for the offence of culpable homicide under section 304 IPC. But the above homicide ended in a FIR

¶26

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

¶27

¶28

registered in Perumbavooor Police Station for the offence under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only.

¶29

Petitioner has submitted that petitioner's firm had executed glass work in major land mark buildings in India and abroad. He has further submitted that there is a huge and imminent danger in every building where annealed glasses are used for construction of doors, windows, roofs etc. and in other countries, use of annealed glasses are not permitted for the building constructions as it is risky and dangerous and toughened glass/laminated safety glass are mandated by law in these countries, but here is no law to regulate the use of glass in constructions till date. Safety standards demands the use of 12mm toughened glass for doors and for more safety toughened laminated glass of 10 mm can be used to avoid risk. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the existing building rules need provisions to ensure the use of safety glasses such as toughened glass and laminated safety glass. The petitioner has highlighted the shortcomings in the existing building rules and the need to enact laws to regulate and confirm the safety of glass fittings in buildings.

¶30

Petitioner has submitted that instead of incorporating provisions in the existing building rules, now executive orders are being issued by the District Collectors under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. True copy of the order issued by the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority, Ernakulam

¶31

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

¶32

¶33

dated 18.6.2020 insisting for the use of toughened glasses in commercial buildings is produced as Ext.P2. Similar orders are issued by the District Collectors of Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam. But according to the petitioner, the above orders are discriminatory, as not even complied with, in Government buildings including Collectorates, Civil Stations and Police Stations and the time limit prescribed in these orders are already over, but the District Administrations are not implementing the same. Therefore, according to the petitioner, glass becomes an important material and component of many parts of the buildings and the need to enact laws to regulate and confirm safety standards has become imperative and essential.

¶34

Under the above circumstances, petitioner has submitted representations, to regulate the use of glasses in buildings by amending the building rules, to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the respondents herein on 29.6.2020, which is produced as Exts.P3 to P5. But no action is taken in the said representations till date and the said action is unjust and arbitrary. The legal issue involved in this matter is a huge threat which is being posed in every building and this Court alone can direct, to set the law in motion. Inaction to save the lives of people in this matter is culpable and unjustifiable. Hence the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶35

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

¶36

¶37

Earlier on 27^th July, 2020, Mr.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney, took notice on the respondents. On this day when the matter came up for hearing, learned State Attorney submitted that the only provision in Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 as regards use of glasses in the construction of a building construction is in rule 6(10) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, dealing with building plans to be submitted which reads thus:

¶38

“6(10)In case of high-rise buildings the suggestions in the guidelines on use of Glass in buildings-Human safety, 2015 shall be adhered to wherever glass is extensively used in building.”

¶39

Mr.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney, further submitted that rules have to be amended.

¶40

Though petitioner has sought for a larger relief in prayers 1 and 2, Mr.A.Rajasimhan, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to consider and dispose of the representations Exts.P3 to P5 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶41

Placing on record the said submission, there is no need for this Court to delve into the merits of the case. Suffice to direct the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2, to consider Exts.P3 to P5 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within one month from the date of

¶42

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

¶43

¶44

receipt of a copy of the judgment, taking also into account the guidelines on Use of Glass in Buildings-Human Safety, 2015.

¶45

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

WP(C).No.15229 OF 2020(S)

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1	PRINTOUT OF THE ONLINE NEWS REPORTED IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS ON 16.6.2020
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Siddique Babu I. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddique Babu I. v. 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

Prasobh B. Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Chandar Raju Vs State of Kerala

Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Shanu

Ragitha Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations Vs Ananthapadmanabhan C. S.

Mohammed Faizal P.M. Vs the Registrar