Allowed

A C City Projects Private Limited v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC10 Jul 2019WP(C)/7412/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Kerala Water Authority to provide water connection to the petitioner apartment complex through the pipeline already laid, subject to a bond for repairs, to avoid further road cutting and public inconvenience.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to provide water connection within one month conditioned on petitioner executing a bond for pipe repair.

A C City Projects Private Limited Vs Assistant… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7412 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 M/S. A C CITY PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 5TH FLOOR, AC ESTATE, JANATHA JN, SA ROAD, VYTILLA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.C. XAVIER.

¶8

2 AC CANDLEWOOD APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, AC CANDLEWOOD, PONNETH SOUTH ROAD, NEAR PONNETH TEMPLE, KADAVANTHRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUBRAHMONIAN IYER.S, AGED 53.

¶9

3 SUBRAMONIA IYER S., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. P. SUBRAHMONIAN, 2C, AC CANDLEWOOD, PONNETH SOUTH ROAD, NEAR PONNETH TEMPLE, KADAVANTHRA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, VYTILLA, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI-682 020.

¶13

2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OLD THEVARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 013. BY ADV. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The 1^st petitioner is a builder engaged in construction of multi-storied commercial and residential apartments. Second petitioner is the

¶19

Welfare Association of Apartment Owners and the 3^rd petitioner is one of the owners of an apartment viz., “AC Candlewood”, seeking to quash Ext.P10 communication of the Kerala Water Authority, Kochi, dated 24.09.2018, requesting the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kochi Municipal Corporation to issue road cutting sanction for laying 40mm HDPE pipeline through the 63mm HDPE casing pipe already laid by the 2^nd petitioner at Ponneth South Road, Kochi, and for other related reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶20

The apartment project viz., “AC Candlewood”

¶21

was completed during the year 2017 and the occupancy certificates were issued on 02.08.2017. Thereafter, 3^rd petitioner, for and on behalf of the apartment owners, has submitted an application for water connection before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st petitioner builder had initially issued a letter dated 30.08.2017 to the Councillor, Division No.57 of the Kochi Municipal Corporation seeking consent for laying pipeline for

¶22

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶23

¶24

water connection from the 1^st respondent to the

¶25

apartment complex. Simultaneously, BSNL had issued a route approval for laying underground cable on 03.10.2017 to the apartment complex. The 1^st respondent had also issued a no objection certificate for laying underground cable for electric connection. Thereafter, the Corporation had also issued sanction for road

¶26

cutting for laying the underground cable for electric connection.

¶27

In accordance with the sanction accorded by the Corporation so, the road was cut open. At that point of time, there were objection by the local people pointing out that frequent digging and cutting open of

¶28

road is causing huge inconvenience to them, and since the road has already been dug and cut open, the requisite lines for electricity or water, had to be laid simultaneously. The local people also insisted

¶29

that the road cannot be cut open again for the purpose of laying waterlines. Thereupon, according to the petitioners, the local Councillor of Kochi Corporation and public agreed that underground pipe and water connection can also be laid simultaneously. Accordingly, a request was made by the 1^st petitioner for sanctioning of the estimate for the laying of 63mm

¶30

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶31

¶32

HDPE pipe and the 1^st respondent had by letter dated

¶33

21.12.2017 sanctioned the estimate for laying 63mm pipes for an amount of Rs.3,10,000/-. The said amount

¶34

was paid by the 1^st petitioner to the 1^st respondent by way of Demand Draft. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner had accordingly laid 63mm pipe from Ponneth Temple Road to the apartment complex by choosing the open trench method instead of the HDD method, which was objected by the locals.

¶35

Thereafter, an application for water

¶36

connection was submitted by the 3^rd petitioner on 23.01.2018. However, the 1^st respondent had not taken any steps for granting water connection to apartment

¶37

complex in question. Now, the 1^st respondent had issued Ext.P9 letter dated 24.09.2018, requesting the 1^st petitioner to obtain sanction from Kochi Corporation for cutting open the road for taking water connection, and in turn, Ext.P10 letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kochi Municipal Corporation seeking

¶38

road cutting sanction for laying the pipes, as

¶39

requested by the 1^st petitioner. However, already the pipeline is laid by the petitioners. It is also pointed out that, now the 1^st respondent is insisting the petitioners to lay 40mm HDPE pipeline through 63mm

¶40

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶41

¶42

HDPE casing pipe already provided by the petitioners. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioners to secure the reliefs specified above.

¶43

Respondents have filed a very detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations, and it is submitted, no sanction was given by respondents 1 and 2 to draw the pipeline to the petitioners. The alleged intimation said to be given by the petitioners to the 1^st respondent is denied. According to the respondents,

¶44

after the amount was deposited with the 2^nd respondent, normal procedure was being arranged for the tender to lay the pipeline. However, without securing any permission, the pipeline was laid. That apart, it is pointed out that, since the apartment is a multistoried building, as per the prevailing rule, connection can be given only from separate feeder line taken from 150mm dia or above, and the required 150mm

¶45

CI pipe is available only at a distance of 194 metres from the premises of the apartment in question, and the proposal for the same was submitted. It is also

¶46

the case of the respondents that, the required CSME was not laid and the connection procedure could not be moved on.

¶47

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶48

¶49

That apart, it is submitted, 1^st petitioner

¶50

had given a representation to the 2^nd respondent for laying HDPE pipe in open trench method on 26.02.2018 and the 2^nd respondent had intimated the 1^st petitioner that the new request can be considered only after cancelling the present tender. The letter submitted by the petitioner is admitted. But the prime contention is that, the action taken by the petitioner by laying 63mm HDPE pipe was illegal and the quality of pipe and workmanship were not monitored by Water Authority officials and hence the connection cannot be granted to the petitioners. It was thereafter a meeting was convened on 19.07.2018 and a decision was arrived for laying 50mm/40mm PVC pipe temporarily through the said 63 mm HDPE pipe, considering it as casing and to give connection from that 50mm/40mm PVC pipe. The other contentions raised by the petitioners that laying of PVC pipe through the pipe already put by the petitioner is impossible is not correct, and it was accordingly that Exts.P9 and P10 letters were issued to the 1^st petitioner as well as the Kochi Corporation for securing road cutting sanction.

¶51

petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ

¶52

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019 7

¶53

petition and expressing the impossibility of cutting

¶54

open the road again, on account of various reasons.

¶55

I have considered the rival submissions made

¶56

across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶57

It is an admitted fact that amounts were

¶58

deposited by the petitioners before the Kerala Water Authority for securing water connection. It is also an admitted fact that the construction of the apartment

¶59

was completed in the year 2017 and occupancy certificates were issued on 02.08.2017. However, for

¶60

the past two years, water connection could not be secured by the petitioners. It is submitted that, at present the residents of the apartment in question are depending on water brought in tankers, which is causing huge financial constraints to the apartment owners, and most of them are middle-class people.

¶61

On an appreciation of the rival contentions and perusing the documents and pleadings, I am of the considered opinion that, since the pipeline is laid by the petitioners when trench was made for putting other service line, and after intimating the Water Authority, it cannot be said that there will be any irreparable injury to the Water Authority, if connection is

¶62

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶63

¶64

directed to be given through the line. The main

¶65

apprehension voiced by the Water Authority is in respect of the quality of the pipe that is laid by the petitioners. However, in my considered opinion, the

¶66

said apprehension of the Water Authority can be alleviated by issuing appropriate directions. If again the road is to be cut open, the general public will be put to innumerable difficulties and there is every likelihood of agitation led by the people of the

¶67

locality, which is a common feature when road cutting is taking place very frequently.

¶68

In that view of the matter, I am of the

¶69

considered view that a direction can be issued to the Water Authority to provide water connection through the pipeline already laid by the petitioners. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide water connection to the petitioners at the

¶70

earliest, and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on

¶71

condition that 1^st petitioner executes a simple bond in favour of the 1^st respondent, undertaking to repair the pipes laid by the petitioners in case of any leakage or bursting, at its own cost.

¶72

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶73

¶74

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

St/11.07.2019

W.P.(C) No.7412 of 2019

¶80

¶81

APPENDIX

¶82

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶83

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ASST. ENGINEER, KWA DATED 20.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CORPORATION ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN DATED 20.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KWA DATED 21/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 26.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 06.01.2018
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2018
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2018
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24.09.2018.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATED 24.09.2018.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COUNCILOR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COUNCILOR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF ESTIMATE GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE SUPPLIER OF THE PIPE DATED 3/1/2018.

¶84

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

A C City Projects Private Limited v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A C City Projects Private Limited v. Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Geetha.T.C, Vs Union of India

P M Sainabi Vs Mohammed Y Safirulla K

N.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs the Registrar of Companies (Kerala and Lakshwadeep)

Radhamani Vs K.a.Suresh Kumar

Rajan.E.K Vs the Branch Manager