Kerala High Court
P.George William vs Corporation Of Cochin on 11 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 22843 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
P.GEORGE WILLIAM,
ADVOCATE, HOUSE NO.73/2039, S.R.M. ROAD, PACHALAM
P.O., ERNAKULAM 682012
BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK
AVENUE, ERNAKULAM 682 011
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK
AVENUE, ERNAKULAM 682 011
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK
AVENUE, ERNAKULAM 682 011
4 K.S.BIJILI
CONTRACTOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION
OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM 682 011
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.D.GEORGE
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC, KOCHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22843 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June 2021.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a practising lawyer. He is residing in a
house situated on a plot of land abutting Sivarama Menon
road, within the limits of Kochi Corporation (the Corporation).
The stretch of the road in front of the house of the petitioner
was in a dilapidated condition and the Corporation, therefore,
decided to restore the road adopting Bituminous Macadam and
Bituminous Concrete method and awarded the work of the
same to a Contractor, the fourth respondent. Ext.P1 is the
estimate of the work and Ext.P2 is the schedule of the work
appended to the agreement entered into by the Corporation
with the fourth respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that
the level of the road had raised by about 3 feet during the last
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
20 years as restoration works were earlier carried out on the
road without scarifying the then existing bituminous road
surface. It is also stated by the petitioner that on account of
the said reason, there has been water logging in the area, for
the existing drainage system became ineffective on account of
the level difference between the surface of the road and the
surface of the drainage. In the agreement entered into by the
Corporation with the fourth respondent, there was however a
provision to the effect that the existing bituminous road
surface to a depth of 50 mm (5 cm) needs to be scarified and
removed by mechanical means. It is the case of the petitioner
that the aforesaid part of the work is an integral part of the
restoration work of the road without which the restored road
will not last long. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ
petition that though the agreement entered into by the
Corporation with the fourth respondent makes it obligatory for
the fourth respondent to scarify and remove the existing
bituminous surface of the road, the fourth respondent is
attempting to complete the work without scarifying and
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
removing the existing bituminous surface. It is also alleged by
the petitioner in the writ petition that if the work is carried out
in the aforesaid fashion, the petitioner may not be able to take
out his car to the road from his residential plot. The relief
sought by the petitioner in the writ petition in the
circumstances, was for a direction to the Corporation and its
officials to ensure that the restoration work of the road is
proceeded and completed only after removing the existing
bituminous road surface and to ensure that the level of the
existing road is not increased by the restoration work.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission
on 23.10.2020, this court passed an interim order directing the
Corporation and its officials to ensure that the work of the
road is carried out by the fourth respondent only in accordance
with the terms of the contract.
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the
Corporation and its officials stating, among others, that it was
difficult to scarify the existing bituminous surface of the road in
terms of the agreement; that when the said part of the work
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
was attempted, the bituminous surface of the road along with
metal in a compact form upto 10 cm depth detached from the
ground surface of the road, resulting in dilapidation of the
basement of the road and that as it was apprehended that the
entire road basement will be lost, if the said work is continued,
60% of the scarified material was rolled in the road itself using
road roller making a strong sub-base for a long lasting road. It
is also stated by the Corporation in the counter affidavit that
the scarification process provided for in the agreement was not
intended to reduce the height of the road and that it was only
intended for the proper binding of the material over the
existing road surface. The fact that the level of the road would
be raised once the work is completed is admitted by the
Corporation in the counter affidavit and it was suggested
therein that if the petitioner is unable to take out his car from
the premises of his house on account of the said reason, he
has to construct a ramp for the said purpose.
4. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter
affidavit filed by the Corporation stating, among others, that
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
the deviation of the work carried out as admitted by the
Corporation in the counter affidavit is unscientific and
unauthorised. It is also stated by the petitioner in the reply
affidavit that 100% of the material scarified from the surface
of the road were rolled over the road using road roller and the
averment to the contrary made in the counter affidavit is
incorrect.
5. On 19.01.2021, the petitioner filed I.A. No.3 of
2021 seeking leave to amend the writ petition to incorporate a
few additional facts, grounds and prayers. The said
interlocutory application was allowed, and in terms of the order
passed in the interlocutory application, the petitioner has filed
an amended writ petition. In the amended writ petition, it is
alleged by the petitioner, among others, that the writ petition
was partly heard through video conferencing on 14.01.2021
and adjourned to 15.01.2021 due to connectivity issues and
that the work which was stopped after the interim order was
resumed and completed by the fourth respondent as directed
by the officials of the Corporation with police aid in between,
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
during the night hours of 14.01.2021, violating the interim
order passed by this Court. It is also alleged by the petitioner in
the amended writ petition that on completion of the work in
the aforesaid manner, the level of the road now stands
increased by 2 feet at the entrance of the house of the
petitioner, making vehicular entry to the plot of the petitioner
and vehicular exit therefrom impossible. The additional prayers
sought by the petitioner in the writ petition are for a direction
to the Corporation and its officials to re-do the work of the road
in accordance with the terms of the contract, after ensuring
that the level of the road is not increased and for a direction to
the Corporation and its officials to take steps forthwith to
ensure smooth and free ingress and egress of men and
vehicles to and from the plot of the petitioner.
6. Earlier, the petitioner filed I.A. No.2 of 2021 for
appointing an expert engineer to ascertain and report a few
facts. On 28.01.2021, this court allowed the said application
and directed the Superintending Engineer, Roads Central
Circle, PWD, Aluva to ascertain and report the facts sought to
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
be ascertained in terms of the application, after conducting a
local inspection.
7. Pursuant to the said interim order, the expert
appointed by this Court conducted a local inspection on
05.02.2021 and filed a report stating the following:
1. As per the approved initial level proposal 18cm thick
wetmix macadam, 5cm thick Bituminous Mecadam & 3cm
Bitumen concrete are proposed over the existing road. So
the total thickness of these layers as per the approved
initial level proposal is 26cm. But in the final level, which is
taking after completion of the work, the thickness of these
layers is seen reduced to 14cm. Also the item such as
providing & laying of hot applied thermoplastic compound
and reflective road studs were not seen executed.
2. On verifying the final levels, the height of materials
laid over the old surface is 14cm.
3. The height difference from the restored road surface
and top of the drainage is varying from the place to place.
At three Random points tape measurements were taken in
which the height difference is 19cm, 22cm, 16cm. In some
points the top of the road surface is same as the top of the
drainage cover slab.
4. The height at which the road surface now stands at
the entrance of the petitioner's house from the top of the
drainage slab in front of his gate is 37cm.
5. Safe access for men and vehicles to the petitioner's
property is not possible from the restored road.
6. Water lagging will not be caused in the area due to
the increase in the height of the road. The corporation has
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
already prepared a revised estimate incorporating the
drainage work and there is out let for draining off the water
flowing through drains.
7. No other matters requested by the petitioner.
8. On 5.2.2021, the petitioner filed Contempt
Case No.314 of 2021 alleging that the work was executed
during the pendency of the writ petition flouting the interim
order passed on 23.10.2020. The writ petition was heard
thereafter on 22.3.2021 along with the Contempt Case.
Thereupon, on 24.03.2021, the third respondent has filed a
statement in the matter stating, among others, that the levels
of the road were taken before and after the work and it is
revealed that the level of the road was raised only between
14.5 cms and 18 cms. It is also stated in the said statement
that the level of the road in front of the house of the petitioner
before the work was 22 cms above the level of the plot and the
same was increased only by 14.5 cms after the work. It is also
stated that the Corporation is following Delhi Schedule of Rates
(the DSR) for execution of various works and in terms of the
DSR specification 16.11.2, "scarifying operation will also
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
include consolidation with road roller the aggregate received
from scarifying, although this aggregate will be consolidated
along with aggregate of new wearing course to be paid
separately".
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
10. As noted, the writ petition is instituted seeking
directions to the Corporation and its officials to ensure that the
restoration work of the road is proceeded and completed only
after removing the existing bituminous road surface and to
ensure that the level of the existing road is not increased by
the restoration work. The specific case pleaded by the
petitioner in the writ petition is that the level of the road has
raised by about 3 feet during the last 20 years as the
restoration works were earlier carried out on the road without
scarifying the then existing bituminous road surface; that
there has been water logging in the area on account of the
said reason, for the existing drainage system became
ineffective on account of the level difference between the
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
surface of the road and the surface of the drainage; that it is
provided in the agreement therefore, that the existing
bituminous road surface to a depth of 50 mm needs to be
scarified and removed by mechanical means before making
the fresh bituminous overlay; that the aforesaid part of the
work is an integral part of the restoration work of the road
without which the restored road will not last long; that the
fourth respondent is attempting to complete the work without
scarifying and removing the existing bituminous surface of the
road and that if the work is carried out in the aforesaid fashion,
the petitioner may not be able to take out his car from his
residential plot to the road. The essence of the grievance of the
petitioner in the circumstances is concerning the conduct of
the Corporation in restoring the road in such a fashion as to
raise its level.
11. There is nothing on record to indicate as to
whether the Corporation has prescribed any specifications or
standards or at least guidelines for construction and
maintenance of city roads. The Corporation does not dispute
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
the fact that the level of the road would be raised every time
when road is restored, maintained or resurfaced. The said
course may not be scientific and may affect the interests of
persons residing on either side of the road adversely. But, in
the absence of any obligation for the Corporation in terms of
any statute or guidelines to ensure that the level of road is
maintained when the restoration is carried on, this Court may
not be justified, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, in granting the relief
sought for by petitioner, especially when the writ petition was
instituted much after the commencement of the work. The
prayer of the petitioner in the amended writ petition is for a
direction to the Corporation re-do the work. As noted, the said
relief is sought by the petitioner on the basis of the allegation
that the work has been executed flouting the interim order
passed in the matter. Even if it is found that the work has been
executed flouting the interim order passed by this Court, the
petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the
amended writ petition merely on account of the said reason,
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
since it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief
originally sought in the writ petition. Of course, if the work is
not executed in accordance with the terms of the agreement
and if it is demonstrated that damage has been caused on
account of the same to the people residing on either side of
the road, the petitioner is certainly entitled to appropriate relief
in the matter.
12. I shall, therefore, consider the question as to
whether the case of the petitioner that the work has been
executed by the Corporation otherwise than in accordance with
the terms of the agreement, violating the specific interim order
passed by this Court that the work shall be executed only in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. As noted, the
agreement entered into by the Corporation with the fourth
respondent provides for scarifying the existing bituminous road
surface to a depth of 50 mm. and disposal of the scarified
material within all lifts and lead upto 1000 meters by
mechanical means. The aforesaid part of the work is included
in the schedule accompanying the agreement under serial
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
No.1.005. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation on
18.11.2020, it is recited thus :
"It is most respectfully submitted that the above
road was constructed by tarring lastly before 7 years.
During that time considering heavy vehicular traffic the
bitumen surface was done properly and as result of the
same, the bitumen surface was thoroughly became
compact with the metal used for basement of the road.
Due to the strong construction of the road, it has difficult
to remove the tar surface alone as per agreement
scarifying of existing tar surface upto 5 cm. is only
intended in the estimate. Even though it was tried in
many places, the tar along with metal in compact form
upto 10 cm. depth detached from the ground earth of the
road resulting on dilapidation of basement of road. If
such activity is continued through the entire road, the
basement will be lost resulting the weakness of the
existing road. Therefore, about the 60% of scarified
material was rolled using roller to make a strong sub
base for a long lasting road."
The extracted averments in the counter affidavit would reveal
that as it was found that the work cannot be executed as
provided for in the agreement, it was decided to execute the
work otherwise than in accordance with the agreement. It is
seen that while the Corporation was proceeding on that basis,
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
the petitioner approached this court and obtained the interim
order dated 23.10.2020, directing the Corporation and its
officials to ensure that the work is carried out only in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. The said interim
order is one passed after hearing the Standing Counsel for the
Corporation. The materials on record indicate that the work
was not continued after the interim order for some time.
Although the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit justifying
their conduct in proceeding to execute the work otherwise than
in accordance with the terms of the contract, this Court did not
permit the Corporation to do so by vacating or modifying the
interim order dated 23.10.2020. As stated by the petitioner,
the writ petition was later taken up for final hearing on
14.1.2021 and directed to be listed on the succeeding day
before the physical court. The case set out by the petitioner in
the amended writ petition is that the work which was stopped
in the light of the interim order of this court was resumed at
about 8 p.m. on 14.1.2021 and completed by about 7 a.m. on
15.1.2021. The relevant pleadings of the petitioner in the
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
amended writ petition read thus :
"11. This writ petition was listed for hearing on 13.1.2021
but it could not be taken up on that day due to paucity of time.
On 14.1.2021 this writ petition was listed and the counsel for the
petitioner was heard in part. However due to connectivity
problems during the hearing through video conferencing, this
Hon'ble Court posted the writ petition to 15.1.2021 for physical
hearing in the court.
12. At about 8 pm on 14.1.2021 the petitioner found that
machinery for the road work had been brought to the site and
that workers had arrived. Paver machine, tractor with air
compressor, road roller etc. had been brought to the site.
Ms.Soumya, Assistant Engineer and Mr.Santhosh, Overseer of
the 1st respondent arrived at the site along with the newly
elected Corporation Councilor Ms.Mini Vivera and the former
Corporation Councilor Mr.Albert Ambalathingal. Some local
political workers were also with them. The petitioner went to
them and enquired how the road work was proposed to be done
by them. He was told that they are proceeding with the work
without removing the scarified materials and the metal laid over
it. The petitioner told them that the road work should be
proceeded only in accordance with the interim order passed by
this Hon'ble Court on 23.10.2020. Ms.Soumya, Assistant
Engineer replied that she has been directed by her superiors to
go ahead with the work without removing the scarified material
or the layer of metal put over it. When the petitioner showed
the order, she said that she is aware of the interim order passed
by this Hon'ble Court but she is not concerned with that order,
but she has to execute the direction given to her by her
superiors.
13. The petitioner called Police Control Room (1090) from
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
his mobile number 9847166783 and sought for their assistance
to prevent violation of the interim order passed in this writ
petition. This was by about 8.30 pm. The Police Control Room
informed the petitioner that the police party would arrive at the
spot shortly. The counsel for the petitioner phoned the Standing
Counsel for the 1st respondent at about 8.40 pm and apprised
him about the situation and requested him to inform the
Corporation officials that the writ petition is posted for hearing
the next day and no work in violation of the interim order of this
Hon'ble Court should be done in haste. The Standing Counsel
for the 1st respondent later informed the counsel for the
petitioner that Corporation officials were not responding to his
calls.
14. When the Police party arrived the petitioner apprised
them of the situation and requested them to ensure that work in
violation of the interim order of this court is not proceeded with
at least till the writ petition is heard by this Hon'ble Court the
next day. The police party told the petitioner that they have
been directed to provide protection to the contractor's workmen
and the Corporation officials and they have come to the site for
that purpose. The police party told the petitioner that they had
been instructed to remove the obstructors and ensure that the
road work is done that night itself. By this time a large number
of residents of the locality had gathered objecting to the
proposed continuation of the work in an unscientific manner by
which the height of the road would be considerably raised.
However due to adamant stand of the Corporation officials and
the intimidating stand taken up by the police party the petitioner
and the people of the locality had no option but to helplessly
watch the road work being proceeded with in stark violation of
the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Court and the terms of
the contract. By doing such work that night, knowing fully well
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
that this writ petition is to be heard the next day, the
respondents have attempted to overreach the due process of
law and to render meaningless the proceedings in this writ
petition. They have acted with malafides and have shown utter
disregard to the rule of law.
15. The road work continued till about 7.00 am on
15.1.2021. When this writ petition was taken up on 15.1.2021
also the counsel for the petitioner apprised this Hon'ble Court
about what had transpired on the night of 14.1.2021. This
Hon'ble Court posted the writ petition to 20.1.2021 so as to
enable the petitioner to seek for amendment of the writ petition
incorporating the subsequent events. Shockingly, the road work
continued on the hight of 15.1.2021 till about 7 am the next day.
The height of the road stands raised by over 2 feet at the
entrance of the petitioner's house. The road surface appears
like a cliff from the petitioner's property. The road work done is
in such a manner that no vehicular access from the petitioner's
property to SRM Road is possible. The height of the road and
the nature of its work is such that the people cannot easily or
safely step into the road from the petitioner's property. The road
construction at the petitioner's entrance is purposefully done in
a manner preventing the petitioner and his men from having
proper access and vehicular access to SRM Road. From the night
of 14.1.2021 it is impossible for the petitioner to take his vehicle
out of his property due to the raised height of the road. The
respondents have done the road work in such a manner
preventing vehicular access to the petitioner's property
deliberately so as to harass him and wreak vengeance on him
for protesting against the unscientific performance of the road
work deviating from the terms of the contract and for resorting
to his legal remedy by filing this writ petition. The free
movement of the petitioner and his family members to SRM
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
Road has been obstructed due to the road work done now. Such
a situation is faced by most of the property owners by the side
of SRM Road and persons whose properties are situated on the
bylanes starting from the SRM Road. True copies of the
photographs showing the present condition of the road at the
entrance of the petitioner's property is produced herewith and
marked as Exhibit P7. True copies of the photographs showing
the SRM Road at different points where bylanes from SRM Road
begins are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P8. It is
submitted that respondents 2 to 4 have not come to the work
site at any time when the road work was done. Such neglect
shown by them in spite interim order being passed by this
Hon'ble Court on 23.10.2020 is unjustifiable."
The averments in the amended writ petition as extracted
above stand un-controverted.
13. On a query from the court as to the
justification of the Corporation for completing the work
otherwise than in accordance with the interim order, that too,
when the matter was being argued, the explanation offered by
the Standing Counsel was that the completion of the work
cannot be said to be otherwise than in accordance with the
terms of the agreement since the Corporation has adopted the
specifications in the Delhi Schedule of Rates for execution of
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
the work and in terms of the provisions therein, the deviation
of the work undertaken by the Corporation is permissible. I am
unable to accept this explanation. Clause 16.11.2 of the DSR
only clarifies that scarifying operation may include
consolidation with the road roller the aggregate received from
scarifying with the aggregate of new wearing course to be paid
separately also. In the case on hand, there is no such provision.
On the other hand, the specific provision in the agreement is
that the existing bituminous surface of the road is to be
scarified and removed and the rate provided for in the
agreement is for removing the scarified material for a distance
upto 1 kilometre. Further, the DSR is only a document
describing the rates for executing various civil works prepared
by the Central Public Works Department and the same does
not contain any specification and standard or guideline for
construction and maintenance of roads. As such, even if the
Corporation is following the DSR for effecting payments for the
works executed by it, the same does not confer any authority
on the Corporation to execute the work otherwise than in
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
accordance with the agreement. In the aforesaid
circumstances, the case of the petitioner that the work has
been executed by the Corporation otherwise than in
accordance with the terms of the agreement, violating the
specific interim order passed by this Court, is only to be
accepted. Execution of a road work otherwise than in
accordance with the terms of the agreement resulting in
damage to the people residing on either side of the road
cannot be viewed lightly. Similarly, violation of an order passed
by the Court cannot also be viewed lightly. Needless to say,
the petitioner is entitled to an appropriate relief in this regard.
14. It is seen that raising the level of the road
while carrying out the restoration or maintenance or re-
surfacing work is not an advisable method to be adopted. If a
particular level is not maintained for every road or at least if it
is not ensured that the level of the road is not raised
considerably while carrying out the restoration or maintenance
or resurfacing work, the drains constructed on either side of
the road would be rendered purposeless after a few
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
restoration, maintenance or resurfacing works and it would
become necessary for the owners of the buildings on either
side of the road either to modify or alter the buildings for using
the same for the purpose intended. It is common knowledge
that elsewhere in the world, a level is prescribed for every road
and it is ensured that the said level is not raised in any manner
when restoration or maintenance or re-surfacing work is
carried out. The provision made to this effect in the guidelines
for construction and maintenance of city roads by the Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike during the year 2009 reads
thus :
"On city roads frequent layers are added for
renewal/strengthening periodically raising the road level every
time, it is necessary to recycle the bituminous materials of the
existing road surface. With this, the road level does not go on
increasing endlessly and also the old materials are reused with
minimum additions. This method is already being adopted in
metropolitan cities-Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai."
Reverting to the facts, as far as the road in this case is
concerned, it is pointed out in the counter affidavit that the
road was earlier restored about seven years back. The specific
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
averment of the petitioner in the writ petition that the level of
the road had raised by about 3 feet during the last 20 years is
not disputed by the Corporation in the counter affidavit filed in
the matter. The report filed by the expert appointed in the
matter also indicates that even the work which is the subject
matter of the writ petition was designed in such a fashion as to
raise the level of the road by 26 cms. The report filed by the
expert also indicates that the level difference between the road
and the plot of the petitioner is 37 cms. at the time of
inspection. As noted, the work has not been executed as
originally proposed. Had the work been executed as originally
proposed, the level difference between the road and the plot
of the petitioner would have been 50 cms. The expert has
stated categorically in his report that on account of the said
level difference, after the work, it is impossible for the
petitioner to have vehicular access to and from his residential
plot. It is common knowledge that the situation is not different
in the case of other roads within the Corporation. If the level of
the city roads are raised in this fashion while undertaking the
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
restoration, maintenance or resurfacing works, I have no doubt
that the drains constructed on either side of the roads would
become purposeless and there will be waterlogging in the
properties on either side of the roads. It is seen that it is on
account of this reason that large number of buildings situated
on either side of the roads in the Corporation, the level of
which have been raised considerably on account of restoration
or maintenance or resurfacing works are modified and altered
in course of time and substantial number of buildings are now
being raised by engaging hydrolic jack lifting technology. This
is a sheer waste of resources, and for those who cannot afford
either to modify the building or lift the building, it is a
perennial hardship. This is certainly a matter to be considered
by the Corporation.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the Corporation to constitute a committee of experts,
if necessary, with the concurrence of the Directorate of
Municipal Administration of the State Government within three
months to lay down specifications and standards for
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
construction and maintenance of city roads, in the form of
guidelines. The said committee shall address the issue
discussed in paragraph 14 of the judgment also and submit a
report to the Corporation within three months thereafter. The
committee shall also examine in particular, the question
whether the course adopted by the Corporation in completing
the restoration work of the road referred to in the writ petition
is correct and shall suggest the remedial measures. Once the
guidelines are prescribed by the committee as directed, the
construction and maintenance of city roads shall be carried out
only in accordance with the said guidelines. Needless to say,
the Corporation shall also implement the remedial measures, if
any, suggested by the committee in relation to the road
referred to in the writ petition expeditiously.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Mn
W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22843/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE OF
RESTORATION WORK BY BM AND BC TO SRM
ROAD (BALANCE), NKS ROAD AND TOLL GATE
ROAD PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE
AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY RESPONDENTS 1
AND 2 WITH THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
NIL
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT ISO/MOE-5/1423/20 DATED
23.6.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE
1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS ON 22.10.2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING
THE SCARIFYING WORK OF THE EXISTING
BITUMINOUS ROAD SURFACE WORK BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT TAKEN ON 17.10.2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PARTIALLY RESTORED ROAD TAKEN ON
20.10.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PRESENT CONDITION OF THE ROAD AT THE
ENTRANCE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
SRM ROAD WHERE BYLANES FROM THE ROAD
BEGINS
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT PETITION DATED
14.1.2021
EXHIBIT P9(a) POSTAL COVER OF THE CAVEAT PETITION
