The court dismissed a review petition filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer. It held that water usage in the Mosque for ablution was for domestic purposes, and the previous judgment correctly interpreted the Act and Regulations.
The review petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940 RP.No. 97 of 2018 IN WP(C). 17871/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 17871/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-12-2017
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-685 611.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
SOUKAR MASJID COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.ABDUL RAHIM,NEW BAZAR, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. BY ADV. SMT.S.JASMINE
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.97 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.17871 of 2017
2
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the respondent in
the writ petition, seeking to review the judgment dated 07.12.2017, whereby Ext.P2 communication issued by the respondent dated 14.03.2017 was quashed, and directed the respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner in respect of water charges collected from the writ petitioner, Masjid Committee.
(d) of Sec.37, which states that the exception is inclusive of, “for fountains, swimming bath, public bath, or tanks or for any ornamental or mechanical purposes”.
R.P.No.97 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.17871 of 2017 3
Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the
'ablution' taking place in a Mosque is to be treated as a 'public bath', and it will not come under the supply of
water for domestic purposes.
petitioner submitted that, water is used by the people visiting the Mosque for washing their hands, face and
there is no bath taking place before entering the Mosque. It is also pointed out that, the water collected in the
tank in the premises of the Mosque is not being used by the public, however, the same is used for the limited purpose of the worshippers coming to the Mosque alone.
across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
and it was found that use of water in Mosque cannot be termed otherwise than for domestic purposes. It was thereupon that Ext.P2 communication was quashed and the respondent was directed to re-consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner. When there were clear
R.P.No.97 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.17871 of 2017 4
findings rendered by this Court on the basis of the
provisions of the Act and the Regulations, I do not think that there is error apparent on the face of the record or other disabilities, enabling the respondent to file a review before this Court. If the review petitioner is aggrieved, the review petitioner had every opportunity to prefer an appeal against the judgment. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any case for review of the judgment.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
St/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition reveals any error apparent on the face of the record or other disabilities warranting a review of the judgment.
Whether using water for ablution in a Mosque constitutes a commercial activity or falls under domestic purposes under the Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA
SOUKAR MASJID COMMITTEE
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
