Disposed

P.Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Kollam Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022WP(C)/28899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's application for permission to drain rainwater to public drainage, given severe waterlogging in his apartment complex.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider Ext.P6 application and grant permission on required conditions if petitioner is eligible.

P.Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs Kollam Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 28899 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI AGED 72 YEARS S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, K.CHELL RESIDENCY, RAMANKULANGARA, KOLLAM - 691 003.

¶8

BY ADVS. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) M.R.SUDHEENDRAN ANANDA PADMANABHAN UTHARA A.S MAHESH CHANDRAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON VIVEK NAIR P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOLLAM- 691 001.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (NATIONAL HIGHWAY) BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C) No. 28899 of 2022

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2022

¶20

The petitioner is owner of an apartment complex situated at Ramankulangara, Kollam. The Corporation authorities have issued Occupancy Certificate to the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner states that during rainy season, the water level in the basement ground of the apartment complex will come upto 4 Feet as the land is situated at a lower claim than the public road nearby. The petitioner, in order to avoid waterlogging, had constructed a rain water harvesting tank additionally in the premises of the apartment complex. However, the Corporation authorities directed the petitioner to demolish the said tank as rain

¶22

water harvesting tank is being constructed in the setback area of

¶23

¶24

WP(C) No. 28899 of 2022

¶25

the building.

¶26

The petitioner states that as the petitioner has been

¶27

denied permission to construct a rain water harvesting tank, the petitioner has no other way than to drain out the water getting accumulated in the apartment complex premises to the nearest drainage which is passing across the road in front of the apartment complex. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P6 application before the Corporation authorities seeking permission to drain out the water to the public drainage.

¶28

The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 1^st respondent-Corporation and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner ought to have made sufficient provision at the time of construction of the building itself, for diverting the rain water. If any permission is granted to the petitioner for draining the water to the public drainage, the building being an apartment complex the petitioner is likely to

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No. 28899 of 2022

¶31

drain out waste water also into the drainage, which will be against public interest. On the other hand, if the petitioner assures that only the rain water would be drained out to be public drainage, the application for permit can be considered in accordance with law. The Standing Counsel further pointed out that for construction of the outlet to the drainage, road cutting permission would be necessary and perhaps No Objection Certificate/Sanction of the 3^rd respondent-National Highway Authority of India may also be necessary.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

¶33

The petitioner has constructed an apartment complex having 40 residential units. According to the petitioner, during rainy season, waterlogging occurs in the apartment complex premises upto a height of 4 Feet. This will be a disastrous situation where

¶34

40 families are residing. In such circumstances, it would be only

¶35

¶36

WP(C) No. 28899 of 2022

¶37

just and proper that the respondents 1 and 2 consider the request of the petitioner to drain out rain water to the public drainage.

¶38

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner, and grant permission to the petitioner on such conditions as may found required, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and entitled.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

WP(C) No. 28899 of 2022

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28899/2022

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1	A TRUE	COPY OF THE	OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE
	ISSUED 22/02/2	BY THE 020	2ND RESPONDENT ON
Exhibit P2	A TRUE DATED RESPOND	COPY OF THE O 10/01/2021 I ENT.	RDER NO.SZ/TP/2109/21 SSUED BY THE 2ND
Exhibit P3	A TRUE 17/10/2 BEFORE	COPY OF THE 021 SUBMITTED THE MAYOR OF	REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE PETITIONER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE 20/10/2 BEFORE	COPY OF THE 021 SUBMITTED 3RD RESPONDEN	REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE PETITIONER T.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE 21/02/2 BEFORE	COPY OF THE 022 SUBMITTED 3RD RESPONDEN	REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE PETITIONER T.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE 01/04/2 THE RES	COPY OF THE 022 SUBMITTED PONDENTS 1 &	REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE PETITION TO 2.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE 07/04/2 TO THE	COPY OF THE 022 ISSUED BY PETITIONER.	COMMUNICATION DATED THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	TOPOGRA ATLAS S	PHY MAP OF T URVEY ENGINEE	HE AREA PREPARED BY RS.

P.Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Kollam Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Kollam Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Thaloor Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Rajeev Joseph Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Binil M.K. Vs the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat

Sebastian M.A Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation

Josekutty Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala