Allowed

Alex Rockey v. Chief Executive Officer (Ceo)

Kerala HC8 Feb 2022WP(C)/2993/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner owner of heritage building in Mattanchery challenged proposed electrical lamp post locations by Cochin Smart City Mission. Court directed respondents not to erect any lamp posts in front of the petitioner's building entry gates or points.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 1 to 3 not to erect any electrical lamp posts in front of any entry gates/points of the petitioner's building under renovation.

Alex Rockey Vs Chief Executive Officer (Ceo) — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 19TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALEX ROCKEY AGED 42 YEARS S/O ROCKEY C NEROTH, 10D AURA RDS FLAT, K P VALLOM ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM-682020. BY ADVS. J.JULIAN XAVIER FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) COCHIN SMART MISSION LTD, (CSML) 4TH FLOOR, JLN STADIUM METRO STATION, KALOOR, COCHIN-682017, KERALA.

¶10

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR COCHIN SMART MISSION LTD, (CSML) 4TH FLOOR, JLN STADIUM METRO STATION, KALOOR, COCHIN-682017, KERALA.

¶11

3 PROJECT ENGINEER COCHIN SMART MISSION LTD, (CSML) 4TH FLOOR, JLN STADIUM METRO STATION, KALOOR, COCHIN-682017, KERALA.

¶12

4 IPE GLOBAL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (SMART CITY TEAM LEADER), (ELECTRICAL), 5TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, (HOUSING BOARD) PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682011.

¶13

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

5 KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BANK(KIIFB), CONSULTANCY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, LAJ ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, KALOOR KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KATHRIKKADAVU, KOCHI-682017.

¶16

BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI B.G.HARINDRANATH SC FOR KIIFB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2022

¶21

The petitioner who is owner in possession of 6 Ares and

¶22

7M² land in Mattanchery Village is before this Court seeking to direct the 5^th respondent to erect all the electrical lamp posts only in the places approved as per Ext.P4 sketch. The petitioner also seeks to declare that the proposed change of alignment of electrical lamp posts in Synagogue Lane, in Mattanchery Village is contrary to Ext.P4 approved sketch and to further direct the 5^th respondent to construct all the electrical lamp posts only as per the approved sketch.

¶23

The petitioner states that he is converting an existing heritage building in his land into a hotel by named David Star Hotel. The renovation work is in progress. The petitioner is renovating the building under the supervision of an eminent

¶24

heritage restorer Mr. Karl Damschien.

¶25

While the renovation work was in progress, the

¶26

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

respondents 1 to 3, decided to carry out the restoration of Cochin Synagogue Lane as part of Cochin Smart City Program. As per the plan, the overhead hanging electrical wires were all removed and underground cable have been planned. For the said purpose four Electrical Distribution Boxes were originally proposed in four different locations in Synagogue Street.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have changed the locations of the electrical boxes from the original sketch. Now an electrical box has been installed in front of the petitioner’s property. The petitioner earlier approached this Court filing WP(C) No.24286/2021 aggrieved by the change of alignment of Electrical Distribution Boxes. This Court disposed of the writ petition recording the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the Cochin Smart Mission Limited to the effect that they will be adhering to Ext.P2 and the Electrical Distribution Boxes will be placed at the space earmarked in Ext.P2.

¶30

The petitioner contends that inspite of the

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶33

undertaking so given in WP(C) No.24286/2021, the

¶34

respondents have changed the alignment of the electrical boxes.

¶35

The petitioner’s apprehension is that apart from an Electrical Distribution Box installed close to the boundary of the petitioner, the respondents are likely to erect electrical lamp posts in front of the petitioner’s shop, departing from the original sketch and causing obstruction to the ingress and egress to the building of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner seeks to command the respondents to strictly adhere to the sketch for erecting electrical lamp posts.

¶36

The respondents 1 to 3 contested the writ petition

¶37

filing a Statement and Additional Statement. The respondents 1 to 3 stated that;

¶38

“3. It is humbly submitted that as a part of beautification project in Synagogue Lane, this respondentCSML has upgraded the existing overhead utilities by underground trenching and cabling works and considering the heritage zone CSML has laid granite stone in Synagogue Lane through the existing project contractors. Synagogue lane in Mattanchery is within the ABD area of Smart City and considering the heritage importance of the area, The Kerala Handicraft Dealers and Manufacture

¶39

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

Welfare Association and Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH for brevity) Kochi Chapter requested CSML to give a facelift to the area by providing good quality tiling works, undergrounding of electrical and telecom utilities and decorative street lights with heritage features.”

¶42

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶43

and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶44

The petitioner apprehends that respondents 1 to 3 are proposing to erect electrical lamp posts in front of the entry to the petitioner's building which is being renovated by the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 3 on the other hand would submit that the petitioner’s building under renovation is having a total length of 17.8 metres. The distance between two electric lamp posts propose to be erected in this lane is between 5.9 metres to 13.4 metres. Therefore, two lamp posts are erected in front of the petitioner’s compound wall at a distance of 8.6 metres. It is evident that the petitioner’s building has 3 entrances by way of arch in the building and windows. There are three openings to the petitioner's building. Going by the

¶45

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

averments made in the Additional Statement filed by the petitioner it emerges that since the petitioner’s building has a length of 17.8 metres, technically it is neither feasible nor possible to avoid two lamp posts in the boundary of the petitioner’s compound wall.

¶48

However, it is to be noted that the petitioner is proposing to run a business there after renovating the building under the supervision of a Heritage Restorer. The area is a very important heritage centre in Kochi. Therefore, it will be inappropriate to erect any lamp post in front of the entry to the building of the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 3 would submit that they do not propose to erect lamp post in front of the entry points of the petitioner’s building. In view of the submissions so made by the respondents 1 to 3, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions.

¶49

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing that the respondents 1 to 3 shall not erect any lamp posts in front of any of the entry gates/points of the petitioner's building under

¶50

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶51

¶52

renovation. This order will not prevent the respondents 1 to 3 from erecting electric lamp posts as per the plan without

¶53

obstructing the entry points to the petitioner’s building.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2993/2022

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021 DATED 19.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MATTANCHERY VILLAGE.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2021 IN WPC NO.24286/2021.
Exhibit P3	PHOTO SHOWING ERECTION OF ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO SHOWING FOUNDATION OF THE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LAMP (2ND IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING).
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE APPROVED PLAN.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT THROUGH EMAIL.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE EMAIL DATED 25.01.2022.

¶63

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :

¶64

ANNEXURE R1(a) COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 14.02.2021 SUBMITTD BY THE STAKE HOLDERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶65

WP(C) NO. 2993 OF 2022

¶66

¶67

ANNEXURE R1(b) COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 05.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE CONTRACTOR COPY OF HTE LETTER ANNEXURE R1(c) NO.CSML/INTACH/2021/230 DATED 15.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE CONVENER INTACH COPY OF THE LETTER ANNEXURE R1(d) NO.SCML/INTACH/2021/230 DATED 25.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER CSML TO THE CONVENER INTACH COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2021 ANNEXURE R1(e) IN WPC NO.25065/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Alex Rockey v. Chief Executive Officer (Ceo)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alex Rockey v. Chief Executive Officer (Ceo)

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

Gopinathan Pillai Vs a K Sini

Shivendu R.Sekhar Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Iiyas T.S Vs State of Kerala

Kripa Charitable Society Vs District Social Justice Officer

Muraleedharan Pillai Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Sherly Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)