Dismissed

Mohammed Hussain v. the Managing Authority, Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016WP(C)/16940/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the writ petition filed to challenge a theft notice, holding that the matter depends on facts to be thrashed out before the statutory authority. The petitioner was directed to prefer an appeal under the Act within three weeks after depositing the required amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer an appeal under Section 46E within three weeks after depositing one-third of the assessed amount.

Mohammed Hussain Vs the Managing Authority, Kerala… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16940 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.AHAMED,M.A.HOUSE,ANCHUMURI, PUTHUKODE,PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SRI.U.M.HASSAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, 'JALABHAVAN', VELLAYAMABALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶11

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.B.SUB DIVISION,ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678541.

¶12

R2 BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 16940 of 2016 (N)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.04.2016

¶18

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlK

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.16940 of 2016

¶24

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

¶27

Ext.P1 notice issued by the second respondent and for other related reliefs.

¶28

As per Ext.P1 dated 26.4.2016 and amount of Rs.1,04,000/- was directed to be paid within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Ext.P1 notice it is stated that petitioner has stolen water from Chendakkal water tank using 40MM hose for watering rubber plants and plantains.

¶29

According to the petitioner, there is no plantain cultivation in his property and the rubber trees does not require any watering. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, Ext.P1 demand is bad, and seeks to quash Ext.P1.

¶30

Respondents have filed a statement refuting the

¶31

allegations raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and basically contending that, petitioner has drawn water from a

¶32

W.P.(C) No.16940 of 2016

¶33

¶34

water tank using a hose and other devices during peak summer season and thereby petitioner has indulged in theft, which is liable to be proceeded. Therefore, action pursuant to Ext.P1 is in accordance with law and not requiring any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶36

Apparently, the case put forth by the petitioner in this writ petition is dependent largely on facts. As per Ext.P1 demand it is stated that, petitioner has indulged in theft, which is liable to be proceeded as per the provision of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act, 1986. If the petitioner is aggrieved, a remedy is provided under Section 46E of the said Act. However, without resorting to the said remedy, petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Going by the tenor of the contentions raised, and the

¶37

W.P.(C) No.16940 of 2016

¶38

¶39

objections filed by the respondent-water authority shows that the said matter is to be thrashed out before the statutory authority.

¶40

Further more the contentions raised are largely dependent on fact which cannot be unearthed by this Court sitting in this jurisdiction.

¶41

Therefore, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a time frame I propose to dispose of this writ petition.

¶42

As per section 46E a time limit of 30 days is prescribed for the purpose of filing the appeal and petitioner has to remit 1/3^rd of the assessed amount within the period prescribed for the purpose. Since the petitioner was prosecuting this writ petition, I think it is only proper that an opportunity is provided to the petitioner to file the appeal within a time frame.

¶43

Therefore, petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after depositing the

¶44

W.P.(C) No.16940 of 2016

¶45

¶46

amount prescribed thereunder. If such any such appeal is received, same will be treated as an appeal within the time as prescribed under law, and take a decision within a further

¶47

period of two months, thereafter.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶51

dlk/8/11/

Mohammed Hussain v. the Managing Authority, Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Hussain v. the Managing Authority, Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnana Pillai Vs the District Police Chief

Francis Cleetus Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Yohannan.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Venkidachalam Vs State of Kerala

Athulya J.R. Vs State of Kerala