Disposed

Abi Itty Jacob v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2022WP(C)/5760/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought demolition of a traffic system installation causing shop obstruction and drainage issues. The Court noted unclaimed cables hindered drainage work. It directed the Corporation to complete drainage reconstruction within three months, dispensing with further adjudication on the traffic system.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 6th respondent-Corporation to complete the drainage reconstruction process within a period of three months.

Abi Itty Jacob Vs the State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022/

¶4

19TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5760 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 ABI ITTY JACOB AGED 63 YEARS RESIDING AT C.C 36/629-A, KANIANKULAM HOUSE, CHAMMANY ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM

¶7

2 FRANCIS OOMMEN M.V, AGED 72 YEARS S/O. OOMMEN, RESIDING AT MELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PODIYADI P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PARTNER, MELAMPARAMBIL AGENCIES, OPP. MALAYALA MANORAMA, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

3 TESSY F. OOMMEN, D/O. FRANCIS OMMEN M.V, RESIDING AT MELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PODIYADI P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PARTNER, MELAMPARAMBIL AGENCIES, OPP. MALAYALA MANORAMA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

4 GEORGE F. OOMMEN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS OOMMEN M.V, RESIDING AT MELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PODIYADI P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PARTNER, MELAMPARAMBIL AGENCIES, OPP. MALAYALA MANORAMA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN

¶11

W.P(C) No.5760 of 2020 ]

¶12

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESNTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, STATE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

¶15

2 SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

¶16

3 CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS), MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33

¶17

4 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM

¶18

5 KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED (KMRL), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 4TH FLOOR, JLN METRO STATION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 014

¶19

6 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN 682 011

¶20

7 COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 9TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 001

¶21

8 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, NEAR NGO QUARTERS, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 030

¶22

9 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD SECTION, LAYAM ROAD, OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI PIN 682 301

¶23

W.P(C) No.5760 of 2020 ]

¶24

¶25

ADDL. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, R10 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶26

ADDL. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, R11 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶27

ADDL B.S.N.L,

¶28

.R12 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER

¶29

[ADDL R10, R11 AND R12 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/11/2021 IN WP(C) 5760/2021]

¶30

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.SAREENA GEORGE,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD. SRI.ARUN ANTONY V.V.JOSHI

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

W.P(C) No.5760 of 2020 ]

¶33

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2022

¶36

The petitioners, who are shop owners running their establishments on the northern side of Sahodaran Ayyappan Road at Manorama Junction, Ernakulam, approached this Court seeking to command the respondents to demolish the basement constructed in front of the shops of the petitioners for installing Intelligent Traffic Management System (ITMS) and to shift the site for installation of the same to a suitable location and to install ITMS therein without causing obstruction to the ingress and egress to the shop room of the petitioners.

¶37

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the drainage in front of the petitioners' establishment is broken and is without slab cover. The petitioners could not take their vehicles near to their shops due to this issue. Non completion of the drainage construction is causing difficulties to the petitioners

¶38

W.P(C) No.5760 of 2020 5 ]

¶39

and their customers.

¶40

The Standing Counsel for the Cochin Corporation, on instructions, submitted that subsequently, when the 6^th respondent conducted an inspection, it is found that about 30 cable lines are drawn through the said old drainage. It has been reported that those cables will cause hindrance to the reconstruction of the drainage. More than three decades old cables are also found there and owner of those cables are untraceable. Therefore, the matter was brought to the attention of this Court and thereafter, a paper publication was made by the 6^th respondent on the basis of the interim orders in the above case. In the paper publication, the owners of the cables were instructed to contact the 6^th respondent within seven days. But, till now, no one came forward claiming ownership of the cables.

¶41

It is submitted that an estimate amount of ₹2,08,000/has been made on 06.11.2021 for maintenance of the said drainage reconstruction work. The amount was estimated for

¶42

W.P(C) No.5760 of 2020 6 ]

¶43

the work of the 15 metre long and 1.5 metre wide drainage in front of the petitioners' shop rooms. Corporation is waiting for approval of technical sanction for carrying out the work. The estimated funds for the ward/division allocated in the financial year 2021-'22 is lapsed and a new proposal is submitted for the work by allotting the amount from the general fund of the Division for the year 2022-'23. Accordingly, the estimated amount was charged and the matter is submitted for technical sanction. Once, the technical approval is given for the work, it takes time for the Contractor to accept the tender process and issue the Work Order along with the agreement. Then, the Contractor needs to be allowed at least two months to complete the drainage construction work.

¶44

Drainage construction is not possible without cutting many of the unwanted and unclaimed cables laid in the portion. Based on Annexure R6(a), the 6^th respondent is ready to remove the cables for the drainage reconstruction work. The drainage reconstruction works can be completed within a period

¶45

W.P(C) No.5760 of 2020 7 ]

¶46

of three months after removing the cables.

¶47

In view of the specific submission made by the

¶48

Corporation, no further adjudication is necessary in the writ petition.

¶49

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of recording the statement made on behalf of the 6^th respondent-Corporation. There will be a direction to the 6^th respondent-Corporation to complete the reconstruction process within a period of three months.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶52

smm/ 16.08.2022

¶53

W.P(C) No.5760 of 2020 ]

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5760/2020

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN DATED 27-1-2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ROAD, DRAIN, PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC KIOSK EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-02-2020 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24-02-2020 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.3.2020 SENT BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

Abi Itty Jacob v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abi Itty Jacob 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asma N.A Vs Kaiparambu Grama Panchayat

Madathara Granites (P) Ltd. Vs District Collector

N M R Siraj Vs Corporation of Kochi

Deepak Chandran Vs Birth and Death Registrar

Husain. M Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality

Haskar.M Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality