Allowed

K.C.Parvathy v. the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC8 Aug 2022WP(C)/6181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the second respondent to provide an immediate water connection to the petitioner's house, holding that the mere pendency of a civil suit is insufficient to withhold this basic amenity.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to provide water connection to the petitioner's house expeditiously, provided no interdictory orders exist.

K.C.Parvathy Vs the Executive Engineer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6181 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.C.PARVATHY
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O. LATE KUNJAPPAN, KARINGALI PARAMBU VEEDU,
NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM - 683513.
BY ADV B.RAMACHANDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KOCHI - 682018.

¶10

2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, NORTH PARAVUR - 683513.

¶11

BY ADV BIJILY JOSEPH

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SC P.M.JOHNY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 6181 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2022

¶18

The petitioner’s grievance is that, in spite of water

¶19

connection being sanctioned to her residential house, the water meter was installed and connection given to a different building, while the bills are raised in the petitioner’s name. The petitioner therefore seek a direction to the respondents to provide her residence with water connection immediately.

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel for Water Authority submits that the reason for not providing water connection is the pendency of a civil suit between the petitioner and her neighbour, as also the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the suit was filed 20 years back and has been dismissed. Presently, only an application for restoring the suit, after condoning the delay of more than 5181 days, is pending consideration.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 6181 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

It is contended that the mere pendency of such an application cannot result in the petitioner being denied the basic amenity. I find substantial force in the

¶25

contention. The mere pendency of the application for restoration of the suit is no justification for denying water connection, in the absence of any orders interdicting such action.

¶26

The Writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the second respondent to provide water connection to the petitioner’s house bearing No.V/360 situated in Ezhikkara Panchayat expeditiously and in accordance with priority, provided no orders interdicting the drawing of pipe line is issued by the civil court or the Executive Magistrate. It is made clear that the water connection shall be drawn through the public road, without causing any disturbance to the neighbouring property.

¶27

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 6181 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6181/2022

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `25.07.2018 ISSUED` `TO THE PETITIONER`	`CERTIFICATE DATED` `FROM GENERAL HOSPITAL` `.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 20.09.2002`	`DEATH CERTIFICATE` `OF KUMARAN KUNJAPPAN.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF OWNE` `DATED 2.06.2018 I` `GRAMA PANCHAYAT T`	`RSHIP CERTIFICATE` `SSUED FROM EZHIKKARA` `O THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF CERT` `02.06.2018 ISSUED` `PANCHAYAT.`	`IFICATE DATED` `FROM EZHIKKARA GRAMA`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF CERT` `14.06.2018 ISSUED` `PANCHAYAT.`	`IFICATE DATED` `FROM EZHIKKARA GRAMA`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF RIGH` `DATED 02.02.2022`	`T TO INFORMATION REPLY` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTI` `ISSUED BY 1ST RES`	`CE DATED 25.11.2021` `PONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `11.08.2005 IN O.S` `MUNSIFF'S COURT N`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `.NO.465/2002 OF THE` `ORTH PARAVOOR`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TO RESTORE THE SU` `I.A.NO.2871/2019` `THE MUNSIFF'S COU`	`AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION` `IT, NUMBERED AS` `IN O.S.NO.465/2002 OF` `RT, NORTH PARAVOOR`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TO CONDONE THE DE` `I.A.NO.2872/2019` `DATED 19.11.2019` `NORTH PARAVOOR`	`AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION` `LAY, NUMBERED AS` `IN O.S.NO.465/2002` `OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `I.A.NO.2871/2019` `DATED 02.02.2019` `NORTH PARAVOOR`	`COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN` `IN O.S.NO 465/2022` `OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF MEMO` `PETITION (CIVIL)` `NO. 20590/2019 DA` `PRODUCED HEREWITH`	`RANDUM OF WRIT` `NUMBERED AS W.P.(C)` `TED 19.07.2019 IS` `AND MARKED AS`

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 6181 OF 2022

K.C.Parvathy v. the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Parvathy v. the Executive Engineer, 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

M.Joseph Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

T.K.Kareem Vs Smt.Surya Thankappan

K.Aravindan Vs State of Kerala

Mariyamma Joseph Vs Insurance Ombudsman

Sarath B.Sukukumar Vs the Marriage Officer for Thiruvananthapuram District and Sasthamangalam

Husain.M Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality