Can't order refund for buyers of Moulivakkam flats, says HC
Chennai
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Dealing a body blow to those who had booked flats in the ill-fated Moulivakkam building that collapsed in June 2014, the Madras high court on Thursday said that it could neither order refund of the money nor compensation.
“We are not inclined to entertain the writ petitions, as we are of the view that to fix liability in the state government for officers not complying with their obligation, a trial would have to be conducted,“ said the first bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana.
Atotal of 48 people, who booked flats in the 11-storey `Faith' at Moulivakkam in Porur which collapsed on June 27, 2014, filed the present writ petition seeking refund of `17.68 crore they had together paid, besides `2.6 crore as reimbursement and another `17.68 crore as compensation. They cited grave fi nancial loss, mental agony and harassment suffered due to the arbitrary acts of officials of the housing department, CMDA, directorate of town and country planning and Moulivakkam panchayat union. It was the commissions and omissions committed by them while granting building permission to Madurai-based Prime Sristi Housing that led to the collapse, they said in the petition.
Several PILs, including one filed by DMK treasurerM K Stalin, seeking a CBI probe of the building collapse, various statutory relaxations offered to the builder and an or der to excavate the entire location to ascertain if there are more bodies lying trapped underneath the rubble had been filed in the high court and are pending.
The two petitions were jointly filed by 48 flat owners who never got to see the flats they purchased and are running from pillar to post, seeking help from banks to relax the loan norms and asking the government to help them out of the mess.
Dismissing both the petitions on Thursday , the first bench of the high court said, “It would be in the fitness of things that a decision is obtained only after trial.“
Pointing out that the affected people had moved the con sumer court also for compensation, the judges said: “We may also note that the petitioners have already filed claims before the consumer forum against the builders and their endeavour to rope in the state government was not successful before the forum on account of jurisdiction of the forum.“
The petition was then dismissed with liberty for the petitioners to pursue civil remedy in accordance with law.
