Kerala High Court
Lt. Col Johnson Chacko Verghese (Retd.) vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Defense, ... on 20 December, 2024
WP(C) No.21253/2024 1/5 Order Date : 20-12-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Friday, the 20th day of December 2024 / 29th Agrahayana, 1946
WP(C) NO. 21253 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LT. COL JOHNSON CHACKO VERGHESE (RETD.), AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE MR.
K.C. VERGHESE, FLAT NO. C104, CHANDERKUNJ, AWHO APARTMENTS, SILVER
SAND ISLAND, VYTTILA , KOCHI , PIN - 682019
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, 101-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, SOUTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
3. ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SOUTH HUTMENTS, KASHMIR HOUSE, RAJAJI MARG., NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
4. RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION, CHANDERKUNJ, AWHO APARTMENTS, SILVER
SAND ISLAND, VYTTILA , KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
682019
5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
6. SECRETARY, TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682301
7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING DIVISION, EDAPPALLY JUNCTION,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, PIN - 682024
8. MANAGER, GREATER COCHIN, DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA), P.B. NO.2012,
KOCHI , PIN - 682020
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to pass an order calling for the reports leading to ext p9 and to
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari in so far as it permits the
3rd respondent to retrofit the building and re-induct the occupants and to
direct an expert body/institution to conduct a detailed testing and study
as recommended in ext p8 report, pending disposal of the above writ
petition (c).
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's order dated
03/12/2024 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.HARIDAS, BIJU
HARIHARAN, SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW, P.C.SHIJIN & RISHIKESH HARIDAS, Advocates
for the petitioner, SRI.KRISHNA T.C, Advocate for R3 and of SRI.ANCHALA
C., Advocate for R8, the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.21253/2024 2/5 Order Date : 20-12-2024
W.P(C) Nos.40178 of 2023, 10400 of 2024,
20298 of 2024, 21253 of 2024, 22536 of 2024,
24221 of 2024, 28289 of 2024, 29703 of 2024
and 35585 of 2024
1
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
............................................................
W.P(C) Nos.40178 of 2023, 10400 of 2024, 20298 of 2024,
21253 of 2024, 22536 of 2024, 24221 of 2024, 28289 of
2024, 29703 of 2024 and 35585 of 2024
.............................................................
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2024
ORDER
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.06.2024 in the above writ petitions, a report has been filed by the Indian Institute of Science (IIS), Bangalore, after conducting a structural audit. The report clearly mentioned that no retrofitting is possible with respect to Towers B and C, the subject matter of the writ petitions. The report of the IIS has been accepted by the Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO). The writ petitions seek compensation from the AWHO and also for a direction to the AWHO to reconstruct Towers B and C.
2. The affidavit filed by the AWHO on 04.11.2024 had given three options to the owners of the apartments. The WP(C) No.21253/2024 3/5 Order Date : 20-12-2024 W.P(C) Nos.40178 of 2023, 10400 of 2024, 20298 of 2024, 21253 of 2024, 22536 of 2024, 24221 of 2024, 28289 of 2024, 29703 of 2024 and 35585 of 2024 2 resident's association was not amenable to the options given by the AWHO. Accordingly, the writ petitions were heard on merits.
3. At the close of the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for AWHO submits that if the Architect and the Contractor are prepared to reconstruct the building as no retrofitting is possible and if it is agreeable to the residents association, an amicable solution can be arrived at which will put a quietus to the entire issue. This Court accordingly directed the learned counsel appearing for the Architect, the Builder and also the writ petitioners to get instructions on the same.
4. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the Architect and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Builder submit that in principle they agree to the suggestions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the AWHO. They also submit that the modalities have to be worked out and a clear road map prepared under the WP(C) No.21253/2024 4/5 Order Date : 20-12-2024 W.P(C) Nos.40178 of 2023, 10400 of 2024, 20298 of 2024, 21253 of 2024, 22536 of 2024, 24221 of 2024, 28289 of 2024, 29703 of 2024 and 35585 of 2024 3 supervision of this Court. It is heartening to note that the parties have in principle agreed to the above suggestions, fairly made on behalf of the AWHO.
5. In view of the above, there will be a direction to the AWHO, the Architect, the Builder, the owners association and the remaining writ petitioners to file their road map/blue print/options for going ahead with the proposal suggested for reconstruction. The parties are directed to serve the copies of their response on the other side.
Post on 10.01.2025.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE Anu WP(C) No.21253/2024 5/5 Order Date : 20-12-2024 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21253/2024 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT NO.EEBL-
DVOEKM/695/2023-D4-PWD BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 05-03-2024 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCEKM/11240/2023-D4 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29-03-2024