Contempt Petition Filed Against AWHO MD Over Army Towers Buy-Back Dispute
A contempt of court petition has been filed in the Kerala High Court against the managing director of the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) for allegedly failing to comply with a judicial order concerning the buy-back option for residents of Chander Kunj Army Towers at Vyttila in Ernakulam. The towers were previously ordered to be demolished and reconstructed due to their dilapidated condition.
Court Seeks Report from District Collector
The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while considering the petition filed by residents M R Radhakrishnan Nair and his wife Sreelekha Nair, has sought instructions from the Ernakulam district collector. The court specifically inquired whether the committee directed to be constituted by the High Court had taken any decision regarding the buy-back option. Notices have also been issued to the respondents, including Major General Vikal Sahni (Retd), the AWHO managing director. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on March 12.
Background of the Court Order
In February 2025, the High Court issued an order directing the demolition and reconstruction of Towers B and C of Chander Kunj, taking into consideration their severely dilapidated state. The district collector was instructed to constitute a committee to oversee this process. Subsequently, upon noting that 82 out of 264 allottees had expressed interest in the buy-back scheme, the High Court authorized the committee headed by the collector to determine the appropriate amount to be offered for the buy-back.
Allegations of Violation by AWHO MD
The petitioners have alleged that the AWHO managing director, in clear violation of the High Court's directive, issued a communication to the residential welfare association stating that the buy-back offer is strictly between AWHO and the owners of the dwelling units in Towers B and C, and that no third-party intervention would be entertained. Furthermore, the petitioners claimed that the MD arbitrarily fixed a lower amount for their buy-back claim and asserted that the offer was final and non-negotiable.
Contempt Charges Detailed
The petitioners contend that the decisions taken by the managing director, in direct violation of the High Court's order and by usurping the powers of the committee headed by the district collector, constitute a clear and deliberate case of contempt of court. They argue that these actions undermine the judicial process and disregard the rights of the residents as established by the court.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between residents seeking fair compensation under the buy-back scheme and the housing organization's management, with the High Court now poised to examine the alleged non-compliance in detail during the upcoming hearing.
