Disposed

Benny M.Baby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016WP(C)/20535/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to grant water connection. Court found no evidence application was received. Directed authorities to accept application and decide within two months, considering scheme eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to receive application, process it within two months, and decide whether to provide connection under SC scheme or general category after opportunity of hearing.

Benny M.Baby Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20535 of 2015 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BENNY M.BABY, PARACKATTU HOUSE, OMALLUR P.O.- 689647.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

¶9

SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶10

SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶13

2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER - 689645.

¶14

3. OMALLUR PANCHAYATH, OMALLUR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 689647.

¶15

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶16

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R2 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJESH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 20535 of 2015 (N)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH OMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT	OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE SECRETARY OF THE H.
EXHIBIT-P2:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE THE PETITIONER.	CONSENT FORM EXECUTED BY
EXHIBIT-P3:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSIT DATED 03.06.2015	RECEIPT ISSUED FOR WATER .
EXHIBIT-P4:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGES DATED 03.06.2015	RECEIPT FOR RESTORATION .
EXHIBIT-P5:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED	COMPLETION CERTIFICATE PLUMBER.
EXHIBIT-P6:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUTHORISED PLUMBER OF TH	ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE E WATER AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT-P7:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE THE PETITIONER.	CONSENT FORM ISSUED BY
EXHIBIT-P8:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DATED 06.06.2015.	APPLICATION
EXHIBIT-P9:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DATED 01.06.2015.	REPRESENTATION PREFERRED 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P10:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DATED 18.6.2015.	RTI APPLICATION
EXHIBIT-P11:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.7.2	REPLY TO THE RTI 015.
EXHIBIT-P12:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.9.20	REPLY TO THE RTI 15.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No.20535 of 2015

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

¶32

the action of the 2^nd respondent in refusing to accept Ext.P8 application submitted by the petitioner for water connection and non-consideration of Ext.P9 representation by the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioner, petitioner has provided all relevant documents as stipulated by the 2^nd respondent for securing water connection. However, the 2^nd respondent has failed to provide water connection to the petitioner.

¶33

Respondents 2 and 4 have filed a statement. According to them, water connection charges can only be collected from the petitioner while collecting the filled up forms, however, collecting the application fee is not an enabling circumstances for the petitioner to contend that, already money is received and therefore, his application is to be considered. It is also stated that, petitioner has not made any application to the Water Authority and the allegations

¶34

W.P.(C). No.20535 of 2015

¶35

¶36

contrary to the same cannot be sustained. That apart it is stated, the water supply scheme from which the petitioner demands water connection is planned and implemented exclusively for five Scheduled Caste Colonies in Mullanikadu Area with the SC Development fund. As the scheme is exclusively for Scheduled Caste, no connection can be provided from the said distribution line. It is also stated, the water supply from which the petitioner demands water connection is only a mini water connection scheme. The said scheme is planned, designed and executed taking into account the population of the Scheduled Caste Colonies situate in the Mullanikadu area. Therefore, in sum and substance, it is contended that, petitioner is not entitled to get any benefits of the said scheme.

¶37

Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also producing several documents to establish that the water connection can be provided from the said scheme also. In this regard, learned counsel has produced Ext.P12 issued by the Kerala Water

¶38

W.P.(C). No.20535 of 2015

¶39

¶40

Authority dated 03.09.2015, which shows, water connection can be provided to others without causing any sort of hindrance to water supply to the Scheduled Caste Colonies.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Water Authority and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶42

The sole question to be considered is whether any application was received by the Water Authority from the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner has a contention that, Ext.P8 application was offered to the Water Authority, but the same was not received. True, at the time of issuing application forms, fees are charged. However, that is not an enabling circumstance for the petitioner to think that, petitioner is entitled to get connection from any particular scheme in vogue, is the contention advanced by the Water Authority.

¶43

So much so, taking note of the fact situation, petitioner is not provided with water connection, and

¶44

W.P.(C). No.20535 of 2015

¶45

¶46

petitioner is prepared to make an application for the same, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to receive the application from the petitioner and process the same in accordance with law, taking note of the documents that the petitioner produces before the Water Authority. If the benefit of the scheme is available, without causing any sort of hindrance to the already existing scheme to the Colonies of the Scheduled Caste, and if possible, provide a connection to the petitioner under the scheme, or else under the general category. Any how, a final decision shall betaken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶47

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶49

smv 14.11.2016

Benny M.Baby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny M.Baby v. State of Kerala

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

Sudeep Mathew Vs Jobin K. George

A.J. Joseph Vs P.H.Sadiq Ali

Bindu John Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

S.Chellamma Vs the Union of India

Sri.T.P.Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ambily Sivankutty Vs Union of India