Contractors should be held responsible for ‘decrepit’ P&T apartments: Kerala High Court

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The court has directed the Ernakulam District Collector to respond to the amicus curiae’s report within a week. | Photo Credit: VIBHU H

The Kerala High Court orally remarked that contractors should be held responsible for the “decrepit” condition of the P&T apartments, which had reportedly cost ₹14 crore.

Justice Devan Ramachandran was informed about the structural issues in the apartments by amicus curiae Govind Padmanabhan. The court orally enquired why taxpayers’ money should be spent on rectification work when it was clearly a case of “flop” construction. It directed Ernakulam District Collector G. Priyanka to respond to the amicus curiae’s report within a week.

The Collector informed the court about the two reports on the condition of the P&T apartments that she had sent to the State government. She said that a study by the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, had found that the building was not unsafe but needed immediate rectification.

She informed the court that rectification work might cost almost as much as the construction cost. She had recommended rehabilitating families from the apartments. In her report to the State government, she said she had not suggested demolishing the buildings but exploring whether the Engineering department could renovate them at a low cost. She informed the court that the Thrissur Co-operative Society had been entrusted with the construction of the building.

The amicus curiae reported the residents’ concerns about the proximity of high-tension electric lines, particularly during rain, wind and thunderstorms, as well as the risk of accidental contact. The amicus curiae said that the mandatory clearance from the 110 kV line had not been maintained. The Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) reportedly informed the amicus curiae that the mandatory clearance had been maintained, but rectification work could not be done as it would violate the prescribed clearance.

The amicus curiae also found two types of leakage in the apartments: rainwater seeping through the joints of structural components and wastewater from the bathrooms and kitchens of upper-floor flats leaking into lower floors. The GCDA had confirmed the leakage to the amicus curiae.

Water from the septic tank was noted to be overflowing into public areas and discharging at different points of the tank. The residents complained to the GCDA about the insufficient capacity of the septic tanks and their improper functioning.

The amicus curiae reported defective plastering in the apartments and recorded the GCDA’s statement that the plastering had been done according to the approved plan. The amicus curiae also reported corrosion of steel structures and electrical installations, hairline cracks, the absence of proper lighting, and the absence of a lightning arrest system. He recommended that the residents be rehabilitated at the earliest to decent and habitable accommodation.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal.