Allowed

Vitalis Maria Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2019WP(C)/27684/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition regarding the inaction of the Water Authority in providing a water connection to the petitioner. Directing the Authority to provide a connection from the nearest possible line within two months while the petitioner pays necessary charges.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Water Authority to provide water connection from the nearest possible line within two months and ordered petitioner to pay necessary charges.

Vitalis Maria Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.27684 OF 2019(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VITALIS MARIA MATHEW AGED 74 YEARS S/O JOSEPH,RESIDING AT KAVALAKKAL HOUSE,EDAKOCHI VILLAGE,EDAKOCHI.P.O, KOCHIN-682010.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.SREERAJ SRI.K.BIJU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,JALA BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,WATER WORKS,SUB DIVISION,KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI-5.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,WATER WORKS,SUB DIVIISION,KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI-5.

¶14

R1 BY ADV.SMT.VINITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEDER R2-4 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.27684 OF 2019(I)

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C) No.27684 of 2019

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Petitioner is the owner of a residential-cum- commercial building. He has applied for water connection. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the competent authority in providing water connection sought for by the petitioner. He, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶21

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority.

¶22

3 . The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority, on instructions, submitted that the water line passing through the nearby road of the building of the petitioner is having only a diameter of less than 150mm and in the light of sub-section (2) of Section 38A of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986, water connection cannot be given to the premises of the petitioner from that line. It was also pointed out that appropriate line having a diameter of above 150mm is available at 35 meters away from the building of the petitioner and the petitioner has to pay the costs for providing

¶23

WP(C).No.27684 OF 2019(I)

¶24

¶25

connection from that line.

¶26

4. Having heard the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay whatever costs that is payable for providing water connection from the water line having the permissible diameter, and confined the prayer in the writ petition for a direction to provide water supply within a stipulated time.

¶27

Having regard to the said submissions made by the counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Water Authority to provide water connection to the petitioner from the nearest possible line within a period of two months from today. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall pay necessary charges as and when demanded by the Water Authority.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.27684 OF 2019(I)

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE BUILDING AT EDAKOCHI VILLAGE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASST.EXE.ENGINEER DATED 02.09.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING BUILDING AREA AS PER OCCUPANCY CERTICATE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGJ SITE PLAN OF THE ROAD AND BUILDING.

¶37

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Vitalis Maria Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitalis Maria Mathew 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Krishna.S Vs State of Kerala

Zillion Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Zillion Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

P.L.Jolly Vs State of Kerala

Rinto Raj, Vs the State of Kerala

Peethamparan Vs State of Kerala