Rainbow restaurant demolition: Ernakulam district administration in the dark

SC has asked the Kerala government to raze the building without any delay

February 22, 2014 12:12 pm | Updated May 18, 2016 10:09 am IST - KOCHI

The restaurant of the District Tourism Promotion Council built on the land reclaimed from Periyar River. File Photo: Vipin Chandran

The restaurant of the District Tourism Promotion Council built on the land reclaimed from Periyar River. File Photo: Vipin Chandran

The Ernakulam district administration is awaiting an official communication on the Supreme Court’s latest directive to demolish the Rainbow restaurant at Aluva.

Reports reaching here indicate that the apex court has asked the State government to use its resources to raze the illegal structure without any delay. The court has also rejected the State government’s plea seeking another six months for demolishing the building that came up in complete violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone guidelines on the banks of the Periyar.

Indicating that no further time could be allowed for pulling down the structure, the apex court had also directed that the State could use the service of the central forces if required.

M.G. Rajamanickam, the Ernakulam District Collector, when contacted, said he had not received any communication from the government regarding the Supreme Court’s order. “I have not received any information on the reported order from the government,” he said.

The landmark judgement on demolition was issued by the apex court some months ago on a petition filed by S. Seetharaman, the former secretary of the Association for Environment Protection, Aluva. The court had also rejected a revision petition filed by the State. The building was constructed by the District Tourism Promotion Council, headed by the Collector.

The petitioner had stated that he was planning to sue the officials responsible for the construction of the building, which eventually caused loss to the exchequer.

The officials who had failed to implement the apex court order too would have to face the contempt of court charge , said Sivan Madathil the lawyer of the petitioner.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.