Allowed

M/S. Asian Developers v. the Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/29636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a writ petition against the Water Authority and Municipal Corporation regarding non-laying of pipeline despite issued work orders. It held that refusal based on reduced pipe diameter, verified post-issue, was unacceptable and ordered the Authority to provide connection from the 200 mm pipe.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent directed to provide water connection to the petitioner from the 200 mm AC pipe, expeditiously, after issuing fresh work orders.

M/S. Asian Developers Vs the Kerala Water Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29636 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

M/S. ASIAN DEVELOPERS,
BTS ROAD, NEAR CHANGAMPUZHA PARK,
EDAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI.P.C.JOSE, S/O. P.T.CHUMMAR, AGED 55, RESIDING AT
MARINA MAJESTIC DOOR NO.4A1, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, MARINE
DRIVE,KOCHI-682 018.
BY ADVS.
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
R.RANJANIE

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, NANDAVANAM, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶9

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER WORKS SECTION -II, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶10

3 ADDL. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI – 682011 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

4 ADDL. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, LSGD, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, SONIA NAGAR, KOCHI - 682024

¶12

5 ADDL. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, SONIA NAGAR, KOCHI - 682024 BY ADVS. GEORGIE JOHNY P.M. JOHNY - SC ARUN ANTONY FOR R3 - R5

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 29636 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 03^rd day of November, 2022

¶18

The petitioner has constructed a residential complex named Asian Amaranta in Division No.35 of Edappally Region of Cochin Corporation. The building has been numbered and the petitioner had approached the Corporation and Water Authority for obtaining water connection. The Corporation refused to grant road cutting permit, which compelled the petitioner to approach this court. As per Ext.P1 judgment, the Corporation of Cochin and its Superintending Engineer were directed to grant road cutting permit within ten days, on deposit of the requisite amount. Based on the direction, the Corporation issued Ext.P2 order.

¶19

On the strength of Ext.P2, the petitioner approached the Water Authority for drawing pipe line to the residential complex and made the required remittances, as reflected by Exts.P3 and P4. Thereupon, the Water Authority issued Exts.P5 and P6 work orders. This writ petition is filed alleging that, despite remittance of the requisite amount and issuance of work orders, the pipe lines are not being laid.

¶20

¶21

WP(C) NO. 29636 OF 2022

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the inaction on the part of the officials of the Water Authority is ill motivated. It is submitted that identically placed flats in the vicinity of the petitioner’s building are provided water connection.

¶23

Learned Standing Counsel for Water Authority submitted that, after issuing the work orders, the plumbers along with the officers of the Water Authority inspected the site for the purpose of laying the pipes. At that time it was noticed that the diametre of the 150 mm AC pipeline from which the connection was to be drawn, had got reduced to 125 mm AC. Even though there is another 200 mm AC pipe nearby, that being the pumping cum distribution main, drawing of connection from that pipe would lead to depletion in the pumping pressure. Therefore the petitioner was asked to apply for CSME (Contributory Street Main Extension) connection from a pipe line at a distance of 90 meters.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for getting water connection under the CSME scheme, the petitioner will have to expend a minimum of Rupees Twenty Lakhs and will

¶25

¶26

WP(C) NO. 29636 OF 2022

¶27

also have to obtain a fresh road cutting permit from the Corporation. It is contended that, having provided connection from the 200 mm AC pipe to the nearby residential complexes, the Water Authority cannot compel the petitioner alone to opt for connection under the CSME scheme.

¶28

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I find substantial merit in the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Exts.P5 and P6 work orders were issued on being commenced that the petitioners building can be provided with water connection. Being so, refusal to provide the connection on the premise that the width of the pipe from which the connection was to provided got reduced is unacceptable. The officers of the Water Authority ought to have verified whether the pipe from which the connection is to be provided had the requisite diametre, before collecting money from the petitioner and issuing the work order. Having issued the work and having provided connection to identically placed residential complexes, the petitioner alone cannot be compelled to opt for CSME scheme.

¶29

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The 2^nd respondent shall provide water connection to the petitioner from

¶30

WP(C) NO. 29636 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

the 200 mm AC pipe, as in the case of other residential complexes. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, after issuing fresh work orders.

Sd/-

V.G ARUN JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 29636 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29636/2022

¶39

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶40

`Exhibit`	`P1` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `24.6.2022 IN W.P.`	`THE JUDGMENT DATED` `(C)NO.19981/2022`
`Exhibit`	`P2` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY SUPERIN` `KOCHI MUNICIPAL C`	`THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2022` `TENDING ENGINEER OF` `ORPORATION`
`Exhibit`	`P3` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 16.8.2022,` `WATER CONNECTION`	`THE PAYMENT RECEIPT` `ISSUED FOR DOMESTIC`
`Exhibit`	`P4` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 24.8.2022 I` `WATER CONNECTION`	`THE PAYMENT RECEIPT` `SSUED FOR NON DOMESTIC`
`Exhibit`	`P5` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `25.8.2022 ISSUED` `FOR NON DOMESTIC` `OF THE OWNERS OF` `6.`	`THE WORK ORDER DATED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `CONNECTION, IN THE NAME` `THE PROPERTY IN FORM R A`
`Exhibit`	`P6` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `29.8.2022 ISSUED` `FOR DOMESTIC CONN` `THE OWNERS OF THE`	`THE WORK ORDER DATED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `ECTION, IN THE NAME OF` `PROPERTY IN FORM R A 6`
`Exhibit`	`P7` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `COMMISSIONER OF P` `KOCHI CITY DATED`	`PROCEEDINGS OF ASSISTANT` `OLICE, TRAFFIC EAST,` `31.08.2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P8` `THE TRUE COPY OF` `IN THE FORM OF A` `UNDERSTANDING DAT`	`JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT,` `MEMORANDUM OF` `ED 20.8.2016`

M/S. Asian Developers v. the Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Asian Developers v. the Kerala 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

Sahadevan Vs the District Collector Thrissur

Sunder Builders Vs Chief Engineer (Nw)

Neville Xavier Vs the Regional Manager, State Bank of India

Maniyan Pillai Vs Divisional Railway Manager

Nithin, Vs State of Kerala

Palathra Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited Vs . State of Kerala