HC direction to demolish P ORR and Sons building

The Madras High Court has directed the over-eight decade-old business firm, P.ORR & Sons, situated on a busy road here, to demolish within ten days the building in which its located, on the basis of expert committee report that it endangers lives of occupants.
If the company fails to demolish it, the high court directed authorities to do it.
A Division Bench, comprising Satish K. Agnihotri and Justice M. Venugopal, dismissed the appeal filed by the firm, famous for selling various types of watches, challenging the order of a single judge.
"We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single judge," the court said.

"Since the building, which has been held as in a precarious condition and which may result into causing loss to the occupant and to the surrounding structures as opined by several experts, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single judge. The writ appeal stands dismissed."
"We direct the appellant to demolish the building pursuant to the impugned notice issued by the Corporation and also on the basis of the recommendations made by the experts in their reports, within a period of ten days from today. In default, the authorities are at liberty to proceed with the demolition of the building as required under law," the court said.

The firm is a tenant of Associated Publishers Private Ltd for more than seven decades and the building is over 100 years old.

The Associated Publishers, owner of the land and building, after seeking an opinion of the IIT, had claimed that the structure was in a dilapidated condition, endangering the lives of occupants and passers-by due to the use of heavy machines and tunnel-boring machines, which is being done by the railways for the metro rail project.
The Corporation had issued a notice, citing the IIT opinion, asking the firm to fence off the rear old building and take down the building so as to prevent any damage.

A single judge had on November 13 last dismissed the petition filed by P ORR and sons, holding that if the building collapses, there would be loss of human life. On merit also, nothing unreasonable was found in the notice.
During the pendency of the petition, the judge constituted a committee, comprising a Civil Engineer, a retired Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department and an Advocate of the High Court to inspect the property. The report by majority opined that the structure was unsafe.