Dismissed

Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2020WP(C)/9430/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL filed by Vijayakumar regarding the failure to commission the Vandithadam Drinking Water scheme, the High Court of Kerala examined the petitioner's claims. The respondents submitted that water supply to all areas is now achieved via the CWSS scheme. Relying on this statement, the Court dismissed the petition without issuing any writ of mandamus.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissing the reliefs prayed for is not inclined to issue any mandamus as prayed for.

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.9430 OF 2013(S)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

VIJAYAKUMAR

¶10

AGED 47 YEARS POTTAVILA VEEDU, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.ANIL KUMAR (MANACAUD)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM.

¶15

3 CHIEF ENGINEER SOUTHERN REGION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R2-R3 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶17

SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R1

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.9430 OF 2013

JUDGMENT

S.MANIKUMAR,CJ

Instant public interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

¶24

Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to take steps “on war footing basis” for commissioning the Vandithadam Drinking Water scheme and thereby provide round the clock drinking water to the petitioner and to the public at Vandithadam.

¶25

Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to file a report every month, regarding the progress of the work for the commissioning Vandithadam Drinking Water scheme before this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to provide drinking water to the public under the Vandithadam Drinking Water scheme on a war footing basis from any existing and commissioned projects such as Balaramapuram, Pallichal projects temporarily, till the civil work of Vandithadam Drinking Water scheme, such as intake well, treatment plant etc are completed.

¶27

Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State Government to appoint a judicial commission not below the rank of a retired District Judge to enquire into

¶28

a) the incomplete, non-commissioned, only pipe line buried and otherwise incomplete “Waterless Drinking Water Projects” of KWA throughout Kerala State.

¶29

b) the corruption behind it,

¶30

c) to assess the total loss caused to the State Government/public funds.

¶31

WP(C).No.9430 OF 2013

¶32

¶33

d) To ascertain the culprits responsible for that.

¶34

Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State Government to recover the loss incurred to the state from the culprits who are instrumental for the above said loss of public funds as per the report of the enquiry commission.

¶35

Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State Government to initiate criminal proceedings under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under any other law in force against the officials who are indulged in corrupt practices and responsible for the loss incurred to the State, as per the report of enquiry commission.

¶36

To grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶37

Record of proceedings shows that on 12^th February, 2019, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order:

¶38

“There is no representation from the petitioner's side, when the case is called. However, adverting to the concern raised in this PIL, the learned Standing Counsel Sri.P.Benjamin Paul appearing for the Kerala Water Authority (2^nd and 3^rd respondents) would submit that all drinking water supply projects undertaken by the Kerala Water Authority in the Thiruvananthapuram area, have been successfully implemented. While pointing out the specific project Vandithadam Drinking Water Scheme was perhaps wrongly mentioned by the petitioner, the counsel prays for time to file a statement showing the present position of the drinking water projects.

¶39

The matter be posted accordingly after ten days.”

¶40

When the matter came up for further hearing, Mr.Sri.P.Benjamin

¶41

Paul appearing for Kerala Water Authority submitted that the writ petition

¶42

WP(C).No.9430 OF 2013

¶43

¶44

has been filed in the year 2013 and that as on today drinking water to all places mentioned in the writ petition is being supplied. Statement made

¶45

on behalf of respondent Nos.2&3, is reproduced hereunder:

¶46

“Statement filed by Adv.P.Benjamin Paul, Standing Counsel, KWA for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶47

The allegations raised in the writ petition are not correct. A water supply scheme, CWSS to Kalliyoor, Venganoor, Vizhinjam and Kovalam Tourist area having installed capacity of 21.9 MLD was commissioned in 2016. Now drinking water to all the places mentioned in the writ petition namely, Kunnumpara, Poonkulam, Kolliyoor, Pappanchani, Vandithadam and Palappoor are being supplied from this scheme. On enquiry, the petitioner's residence could not be traced from the address for giving water connection. The petitioner did not submitted any application for water connection to the Water Authority so far. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.”

¶48

Having regard to the above statement, we are not inclined to issue any mandamus as prayed for. Instant writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

WP(C).No.9430 OF 2013

¶57

¶58

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1	EXHIBIT P1. IDENTITY CA	TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS RD ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P2	EXHIBIT P2. ISSUED BY T	TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD HE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P3	EXHIBIT P3. APPLICATION	TRUE COPY OF THE RTI DATED 28.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P4	EXHIBIT P4. 12.03.2013.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
EXHIBIT P5	EXHIBIT P5. REPRESENTAT BEFORE THE	TRUE COPIES OF THE ION DATED 18.03.2013 SUBMITTED HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER.
EXHIBIT P6	EXHIBIT P6. REPRESENTAT BEFORE THE	TRUE COPIES OF THE ION DATED 18.03.2013 SUBMITTED HONOURABLE IRRIGATION MINISTER.

Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar 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

Shibu K.V Vs the State of Kerala

C.N.Vijayakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Central Board of Secondary Education (Cbse) Vs Nayana Sidhardh

Kabeer C Alias Aneera Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Ehvees, Vs the District Collector

Flowers T.V. Vs Mohammed @ Bava