Disposed

A.V. Antony, v. Kerala State Water Authority

Kerala HC9 Nov 2021WP(C)/15678/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the illegal shifting of a public water tap to the petitioner's building front, the Court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Panchayat and ordered the Panchayat to consider the grievance, grant a hearing, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation with Panchayat; Panchayat directed to consider it, hear parties, and pass orders within six weeks.

A.V. Antony, Vs Kerala State Water… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15678 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.V. ANTONY, AGED 76 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, AMBATTU HOUSE, THIRUMARADY P.O. KOOTHATTUKULAM VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 686 662. BY ADVS. MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM MERRY GEORGE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMABALM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶10

2 ASSISTATN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUSTERITY P.H. SUB DIVISION PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM 686 664. 3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE PWD ROADS DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNKAULAM 686 661. 4 THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUMARADY P.O. KOOTHATTUKULAM VIA, ERNAKULAM 686 662. 5 SECRETARY, THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUMARADY P.O. KOOTHATTUKULAM VIA, ERNAKULAM 686 662. BY ADVS. MARY BENJEMIN SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SHRI.GIGIMON ISSAC, SC, THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶14

FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C).No.15678/2021

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

-------------------------------W.P.(C).No.15678 of 2021

¶19

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 09^th day of November, 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶22

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to remove the public water tap which installed illegally near to the commercial building of the petitioner and replace the same to the original place.

¶23

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 4^th and 5^th respondents to take necessary steps for removing the public water tap which installed illegally near to the commercial building of the petitioner.

¶24

Iii. Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

Petitioner is a retired staff of Postal Department. According to him, he is the owner of a commercial building bearing No.9/448 of Thirumarady Grama Panchayat. The petitioner wants to lease out the above premises to others. According to the petitioner, he was under treatment for

¶26

W.P.(C).No.15678/2021

¶27

¶28

prostate and he had undergone a surgery in 2019. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was not available in connection with his treatment, some persons removed a public water tap from its original place and shifted the same to the front side of his building. According to the petitioner, large number of people are coming to take water from the tap and the building premises is always in a wet and sludge situation. The petitioner approached the respondents to shift the public water tap to its original place. When there was no response, the petitioner approached this Court with the above writ petition.

¶29

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the Water Authority and also the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that the tap was originally situated somewhere else and it was shifted to the front side of the petitioner's building without his consent. The Standing Counsel for the Water Authority submitted that shifting of public tap is decided based on the resolution passed by the Panchayat. Admittedly the public tap is now situated in front of the petitioner's building. If the petitioner has got any

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C).No.15678/2021

¶33

grievance or inconvenience because of the public tap, the petitioner can approach the local Panchayat with a representation. Ext.P5 is a representation submitted by the petitioner to the Water Authority and PWD Department with copy to the Secretary of the Panchayat. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to file a fresh representation before the Panchayat within a time limit and there can be a direction to the Panchayat to consider the same within a time frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other affected parties.

¶34

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:

¶35

The petitioner is free to file a representation before the 4^th respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, narrating his grievance and to shift the public water tap.

¶36

If such a representation is received by the 4^th respondent, the 4^th respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it,

¶37

W.P.(C).No.15678/2021

¶38

¶39

after getting report from respondents 1 and 2 if necessary, and also after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties.

¶40

The above exercise should be completed by the Panchayat, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

¶41

Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No.15678/2021

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15678/2021

¶46

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit	P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.6.2021.
Exhibit	P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMERY ISSUED BY THE ASTER MED CITY.
Exhibit	P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.11.2020 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 15.12.2020 BEING NO. PHSP A-184/07 VOL. III OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.1.2021.
Exhibit	P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 15.1.2021.
Exhibit	P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 15.1.2021.
Exhibit	P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.4.2021 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.5.2021 BEING NO. A3-1936/21 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P10	THE TRUE COLOUR PHOTO PRINT OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER AND THE PUBLIC WATER TAP.
Exhibit	P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.5.2021 SUBMITTED TO CANARA BANK.
Exhibit	P12	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.6.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE CANARA BANK.

A.V. Antony, v. Kerala State Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.V. Antony, v. Kerala State Water Authority

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

S. Vincent, Advocate, Vs State of Kerala

Priya Binu Vs T.P.Muhammed

K.Prasad Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Saneesh K. @ Saneesh Kalathil Vs Indusind Bank

Malayil Samad Vs General Manager

Chakkappa Vs District Collector