Disposed

Royal Park Owners Association v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC11 Jun 2012WP(C)/7130/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the respondents to charge a new pipeline to enable drinking water supply. The court, hearing a counter affidavit stating the work is in progress and will complete by December 2012 under KSUDP, disposed of the petition. No mandatory direction was issued.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the respondents were directed to take expeditious steps based on their assurance of completion by December 2012.

Royal Park Owners Association Vs Kerala Water… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/21ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7130 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ROYAL PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION REGISTER NO ER 619/05 N.H. BY-PASS ROAD CHALIKKAVATTOM, VYTILLA, P.O KOCHI-9, REPRSENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT C.V. SOMAR

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 695001.

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION, KOCHI 16.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, W.W. SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI-17.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.7130/2012

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-06-2006 BY THE THEN COUNCILOR OF DIVISION NO.47 OF KOCHI CORPORATION.

¶19

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7-8-06 BY THEN DEPUTY MAYOR OF KOCHI CORPORATION.

¶20

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE ESTIMATE.

¶21

EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-08-06 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-10-06.

¶23

EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-11-07 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS.

¶24

EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 24-5-2011 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-06-2011 BY THE PETITONER.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶27

True copy

¶28

P.A. to Judge

¶29

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶30

W.P.(C)No.7130 of 2012

¶31

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2012

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is an Association, namely, Royal Park

¶34

Owners Association, formed by owners of the apartments in Royal Park at Chalikavattom.

¶35

The main prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the respondents to charge the new pipe line at Chalikavattom Junction laid at the direction of respondents so as to enable the petitioner to obtain drinking water.

¶36

The petitioner has produced Exts.P1 and P5 documents to show that as per the instructions of respondents various steps have been taken by the petitioner including remittance of the estimate amount. Even though the remittance was made on 13/10/2006, the work has not been carried out by the respondents, it is complained. In the counter affidavit filed it is stated as follows:-

¶37

“As a result of the constant efforts and steps at present the work of laying new pipe lines with higher diameter is being executed and is in progress under the KSUDP project. As per the

¶38

W.P.(C)No.7130/2012

¶39

: 2 :

¶40

agreement and work schedule it will be over by December, 2012. After the completion of this KSUDP work, a 160 mm PVC pumping main line can be converted from the distribution main and this can be effectively utilized for tapping the feeding line to the petitioner's residential complex.”

¶41

In that view of the said submission, the respondents will take expeditious steps to enable the petitioner to obtain drinking water within the said time limit. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶43

skj

Royal Park Owners Association v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Park Owners Association v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chellamma Vs State of Kerala

Basil Syam Vs the Registrar, Kerala University of Health Sciences

Muhammed Iqbal Vs the Secretary, Karumaloor Grama Panchayath

Abraham George Vs Sri.M.Sivasankaran, I.A.S.

Aliya.v.Azeez and Others Vs the State of Kerla and Others

Valsala Vs State of Kerala