IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4228 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VEEPEEYES ASSOCIATES, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA-690 106, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETRESS K.P.SASIKALADEVI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY P.JAGADISH, AGED 51 YEARS, SON OF M.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE SRI.K.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.1601, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-682 018. STANDING COUNSEL. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.V.J.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.4228 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to allow/permit petitioner to remove the remaining sand from the elevated sand pad/foundation seating the demolished tanks and tank beds together, upto ground level, in entirety, from their Kollam IRD at Ponmana P.O., Edapallikotta, Kollam,- 691583., and also issue gate passes to petitioner, for its removal. 2. The petitioner is a successful bidder for purchase of assets including dismantling and removal of buildings in Kollam IRD of the respondent at Ponmana.P.O. Petitioner had successfully bid for purchase of the same at price of Rs.1,02,97,040/- and accordingly they were issued with the acceptance letter. Ext.P1 is the copy of the acceptance letter. Petitioner had paid the bid amount in entirety and accordingly, petitioner was issued with Delivery Order dated 3/1/2009. 3. It appears that when the petitioner started to remove the assets sold to them, there were obstructions from certain local people which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.7390 of 2009. The petitioner was W.P.(C)No.4228 of 2010 2 granted police protection by this Court and almost all the assets were removed from the subject site of the respondent by petitioner, except the five Tanks specified as last item in Ext.P3 as also one building being retained as petitioner's office, to be removed last. What remains is the demolition of the tank foundation and bringing the space to ground level as is required by Ext.P3, with the sand collected to form the tank foundation also being removed to restore the space to ground level. It appears that the Tahsildar, Karunagappally came to the site on 10/6/2009 and directed the petitioner not to remove sand from the site, without obtaining permission from his office. Subsequently, the revenue authorities issued Ext.P6 permission to remove the sand being collected from the subject site on demolition of the tank foundations there. 4. The petitioner there after sought for issuance of gate passes which was refused by the respondent. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.25937 of 2009 seeking for a direction to the respondent to issue gate passes to the petitioner for removal of the sand. This was disposed of by judgment dated 18/9/2009 directing the respondent to issue gate W.P.(C)No.4228 of 2010 3 passes to the petitioner to remove sand from the sand pads which form the base of the dismantled steel tanks and remaining steel tanks in the event of petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit attested by a Notary before the respondent undertaking that he will not remove sand from below the ground level and also abide by the terms and conditions in Ext.P6 order. Ext.P7 is the said judgment and Ext.P8 is the copy of the undertaking in the form of affidavit submitted by the petitioner before the respondent. Ext.P9 is the copy of the affidavit filed by him before the Village Officer also. 5. Further troubles occurred thereafter even though he was allowed to remove the sand from the sand pad/foundation, but not in entirety. The Sales Officer of the respondent by the end of October, 2009 directed him to stop further removal of sand. Ext.P10 is the copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner for enabling the petitioner to remove the remaining sand upto ground level, in entirety. Since the respondent has not taken any favourable action, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. W.P.(C)No.4228 of 2010 4 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner will be allowed to remove sand as per the conditions and to enable the petitioner to remove the same, an authorised officer of the respondent will be present at the site itself during the period of removal to oversee the entire activities of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that within 15 days the same will be removed. In view of the above submission, respondent will take appropriate action to allow the petitioner to remove the remaining items in terms of the conditions and an authorised officer of the respondent will oversee the removal of the sand for a smooth conduct of the operation by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj