High Court Kerala High Court

P.J.Johny Alex @ Denny Thomas vs The Additional District … on 16 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.J.Johny Alex @ Denny Thomas vs The Additional District … on 16 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1214 of 2009()


1. P.J.JOHNY ALEX @ DENNY THOMAS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :16/06/2009

 O R D E R
           S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
                 ------------------------------------------
                        W.A. No.1214 of 2009
                 ------------------------------------------
              Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.

The petitioner/appellant, owner of an island known as

Pazhampilly Thuruthu, wherein he proposes to establish a tourist

resort has challenged the action of respondents 2 to 4 in shifting

and erecting an electric tower. The learned Single Judge

considering the dire necessity to erect the tower declined to

interfere and rejected the writ petition with slight modification.

Hence the present appeal is filed regarding the location of the

towner.

2. After issuance of the notice the third respondent

has filed an affidavit explaining the necessity as well as the terms

put up in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the appellant

and the respondents. The appellant undertakes to construct

basement of the tower at the newly proposed location in the north

W.A.No.1214 of 2009

– 2 –

western corner of his property already identified and according to

the third respondent the following terms are necessary for

completion of the work:

“(1) The quality of the material used should

be approved by the Board’s officials.

(2) Work should be carried out under the

close supervision of Board’s officials, for which

Appellant has to remit 10% of the estimate amount

as supervision charges.

(3) Since the work on the International

Container Terminal is time bound, and the Board is

obliged to complete its work to enable M/s.RVNL

to complete the work of the Rail link without any

delay, the entire work of relocation of tower should

be completed within 30 days from the date of this

Hon’ble court passing any direction in this regard.

Already 4 months time had elapsed due to the

pendency of the case. Further delay in completion

of tower erection will affect the timely completion

W.A.No.1214 of 2009

– 3 –

of rail connectivity to I.C.T.T. Vallarpadam, an

infrastructural project of national importance.”

3. The appellant is agreeable for all the terms except

the time limit fixed for completion of the work, i.e. within 30 days.

It is submitted that as per the records, the third respondent himself

has taken 45 days to complete the work and that much time

minimum should be given to the appellant. Learned Standing

Counsel for the third respondent submits that the work is less as

only three foundation pillars are to be constructed and that requires

only 30 days.

4. Taking into consideration the arrival of Monsoon,

though we do not intend to change the term, we give liberty to the

appellant to complete the work within 30 days from tomorrow with

an additional period of 15 days, if required. We make it clear that

in view of the directions as mentioned above, there is no need for

depositing the costs except the 10% supervisory charges. We also

make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent as it

W.A.No.1214 of 2009

– 4 –

is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Writ appeal stands disposed of as above.

S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice

Kurian Joseph,
Judge
vns