Disposed

Tomy J. Parayil v. the Assistant Engineer

Kerala HC12 Jul 2022WP(C)/5715/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of this writ petition filed for reinstatement of a water connection disconnected by the Kerala Water Authority. Relying on a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum order and subsequent representations, the Court directed the Authority to consider the matter and restore the connection within two months if the order is final.

What did the court decide?

Directed Kerala Water Authority to consider the Consumer Forum order and restore water connection within two months from receipt of the judgment, if applicable.

Tomy J. Parayil Vs the Assistant Engineer — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5715 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

TOMY J. PARAYIL, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, PARAYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPURAM P.O., ALAKODE (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT-670 571.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.

¶11

2 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

R1 AND 2 – SRI.V.V.JOSHI, SC R3 – SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 5715 OF 2018

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of July 2022

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

“a)this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to reinstate the water connection to the petitioner forthwith.

¶21

b) for cost and compensation of the petition.”

¶22

From the pleadings put forth by the petitioner, what I could gather is that water connection provided to the petitioner was disconnected by the Kerala Water Authority pursuant to which, petitioner approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur and secured Ext.P1 order. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that after Ext.P1 order, petitioner has made his best efforts by submitting suitable representations to the Kerala Water Authority to restore the water connection. However, no action was initiated. It is thus seeking to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 5715 OF 2018

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

This writ petition was admitted to the files of this court as early as on 21.2.2018. However, no interim order was granted.

¶26

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority Sri.V.V.Joshi and the learned Government Pleader Smt.K.G.Sarojini, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Kerala Water Authority to consider Ext.P1 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur and the representation submitted by the petitioner to restore water connection, if it is not already done, at the earliest and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has become final and binding on Kerala Water Authority.

¶27

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶28

jes

¶29

WP(C) NO. 5715 OF 2018

¶30

:: 4 ::

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C. NO. 146/2014 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR DATED 30.11.2017.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 6.2.2018.

¶35

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES DATED 7.2.2018.

¶36

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 6.2.2018.

¶37

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES DATED 7.2.2018.

¶38

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 6.2.2018.

¶39

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES DATED 7.2.2018.

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

P.S. to Judge

Tomy J. Parayil v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomy J. Parayil v. the Assistant 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

George M.D. Vs Katampazhipuram Grama Panchayat

A. Damodaran Nair Vs Elikkulam Grama Panchayat

B.Prathapachandran Vs Corporation of Trivandrum

Pushpan K.K Vs the Sub Registrar

Mani Vs Village Officer

Sreekala Kumari Vs State of Kerala