SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MARINE PLAZA APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 494 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.P. Ramnath, P. Rajesh, K.J. Sebastian, M. Varghese, S. Sandhya, Bepin Paul, Shalu Varghese, S. Deepak, Antony Tharian
For the Respondents: P.Y. Sheheera, K. Janardhana Shenoy, Jimmy George

The court determined that the petitioner is entitled to restore damaged drainage infrastructure based on proper inspection confirming STP compliance.

Headnote:The judgment analyzes the petitioner’s request for restoration of drainage pipes obstructed due to assumptions regarding STP compliance. The court found evidence confirming exclusive rainwater discharge through the pipes after municipal inspection. The main issues included clarity on drainage management and compliance with municipal requirements, leading to the conclusion to permit restoration by the petitioner.

Result: Writ petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks restoration of drainage. (Para 1 , 2)
2. inspection confirmed rainwater management. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writs or directions to clear all the obstructions created to and to restore the damaged portions of the two water drainage pipes leading from the north western part and south western part of the Marine Plaza Apartment Complex properties managed by the petitioner and passing through beneath the Marine Drive walk way on the west thereof and opening into the backwaters on the west thereof and in the event of the respondent not complying with the same within time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble court, to permit the petitioner to get the same done and recover the cost thereof from the respondents.

2. Award the cost of this writ petition.

3. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of law justice and equity.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the water draining pipes opening to the backwaters, which is exclusively used for draining rain water, have been cut off, on the assumption that there is no STP treatment plant in the petitioner apartment complex.

3. When the matter came up for consideration on 24.11.2025, this Court has directed the Corporation Authorities to conduct an inspection and to file an affidavit as to whether only rain water is being channelised to the backwaters through the drain and no STP drain water is drained into the backwaters, by the petitioner. Pursuant to an inspection conducted, a report has been filed along with a memo, wherein it is stated that after inspection, it was found that there is an STP functioning in the petitioner apartment complex and the STP drain water is not channelised to the backwaters, by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the writ petition is to be allowed.

Petitioner is permitted to restore the damaged portion of the water drainage pipes from the apartment complex opening into the backwaters on the western side. The restoration work shall be undertaken by the petitioner with notice to respondents 1 and 3. The undertaking of the petitioner that only rain water will be channelised to the backwaters through the drain is recorded.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top