Sub-committee to hold weekly review of Chander Kunj Army Apartments demolition and reconstruction

A sub-committee led by the Fort Kochi Revenue Divisional Officer has been constituted to hold weekly meetings to review the implementation of decisions and ensure compliance with the demolition and reconstruction of the Chander Kunj Army Apartments.

The decision was taken on Wednesday at a meeting of the District Collector’s committee, which was formed at the instance of the Kerala High Court to oversee the demolition and reconstruction. This was the first meeting since last October, and the sub-committee was formed in view of the Collector’s tight schedule. The Collector’s committee will henceforth meet monthly.

The maiden meeting of the sub-committee, comprising representatives of the Chander Kunj Army Towers Apartment Owners Association (CATAOA), the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO), and the Public Works department, will be held on February 18. Among other matters, the meeting will finalise documentation for publishing the request for proposal to appoint a project management consultant and demolition contractor. A fresh schedule is also expected to be drawn up for the demolition, reconstruction, and the handing over of new apartments since the original timeline has been completely disrupted. The appointment of a project director and establishment of a project office are also likely to be taken up.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the Collector directed the AWHO to distribute the second tranche of advance rent to 152 apartment owners for the next six months, as the first instalment will expire this month. In addition, the AWHO must pay both tranches to 47 apartment owners endorsed by CATAOA as eligible for rent but who have not yet received the first instalment. The Collector expressed strong dissatisfaction with the alleged lack of cooperation by the AWHO. It is widely perceived that the AWHO’s initial reluctance to pay advance rent to an apartment owner, Ciby George, and its subsequent decision to restrict payment to three months instead of six, prompted him to file a contempt of court petition against the Collector.

CATAOA accused the AWHO of misleading the Supreme Court, where it has filed a special leave petition against the Kerala High Court verdict, by claiming it was not part of the Collector’s committee, even though the apex court had directed it to coordinate with the committee. The owners also insisted that the AWHO must be represented by an official with decision-making authority, preferably its managing director, rather than a junior officer as has been the case so far.