Partly allowed

M/S Kent Constructions (Pvt.Ltd) v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC21 Sept 2023WP(C)/1789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner builder sought water connection for a new complex without requiring Contributory Street Main Extension (CSME), arguing proximity to an existing complex they built. Court directed Authority to hear Association and owners before decision within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Writ Petition allowed; Court directed the competent Authority of Kerala Water Authority to consider the petitioner's claim and issue an order within one month.

M/S Kent Constructions (Pvt.Ltd) Vs the Executive… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 1789 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

M/S KENT CONSTRUCTIONS (PVT.LTD), KENT HAIL GARDENS,
FIRST FLOOR, STADIUM LINK ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O,
KOCHI. REPT. BY ITS DIRECTOR K.C RAJU, S/O LATE K.L
CYRIL, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. B3, KENT
NALUKETTU, VENNALA P.O-682028, PIN – 682025

¶6

BY ADVS.

¶7

SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL
AMALENDU A.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION, KOCHI, PIN – 682016

¶10

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORK SUB DIVISION,KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN – 682016

¶11

3 THE SUPERINTENT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN – 682011

¶12

BY ADV GEORGIE JOHNY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 1789/23

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a builder and seeks that the

¶18

Kerala Water Authority be directed to provide water connection to a complex constructed by them, without insisting on Contributory Street Main Extension (CSME), because the nearby complex – which

¶19

has also been constructed by them – already abides by the same.

¶20

2 . Sri.Saji Varghese – learned counsel for the petitioner , explained that the two complexes in question are in the same compound; and therefore, that it will be possible for the Water Authority to grant water connection to the new one from the earlier CSME which had been taken in favour of the first construction, without any impediment. He vehemently argued that since both constructions are part of the same complex, his client’s request in this Writ Petition is wholly tenable.

¶21

3 . In response, Sri.Georgie Johny – learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority, submitted that, though there is no legal inhibition in acceding to the afore request of the petitioner,

¶22

¶23

WPC 1789/23

¶24

the fact remains that it can be acceded to by his client only if the

¶25

Association or the owners of the apartments of the first complex agree to the same. He added that, on the contrary, they have already raised objections against the request of the petitioner and therefore, that it cannot be agreed to.

¶26

4 . I have evaluated the afore rival submissions on the

¶27

touchstone of various documents and materials available on record.

¶28

5 . As already narrated, the petitioner’s specific case is that

¶29

the two buildings are part of the same complex and therefore, that they can be given water connection from the CSME, which had been availed of, while the first among them had been constructed.

¶30

As is also noted, the Water Authority also agrees that there is no statutory impediment to this, but that the concurrence of the Association/owners of the first complex, through a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC), will have to be obtained.

¶31

6 . This appears to be a justified reason that they should not be faced with scarcity, if the CSME availed for their benefit is now extended to the second complex also.

¶32

7 . In the afore perspective, I am certain that the Water

¶33

WPC 1789/23

¶34

¶35

Authority must hear both sides and take a final decision. It will not be permissible for them to abdicate their responsibility saying that the petitioner must obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Association/owners of the apartments of the fist complex, but they must deal with any objection made, or to be made, in terms of law .

¶36

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the competent Authority of the Kerala Water Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for affording water connection to the new complex from the CSME connection given to the earlier one, however, after hearing them, as also the authorised persons of the Association of the former complex; which shall be done and an appropriate order issued, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Needless to say, all relevant issues, including as to whether the owners of the first constructed complex would be construed to be ‘contributories’ within the ambit of the Rules applicable to the Kerala Water Authority, are left open to be decided during the

WPC 1789/23

afore exercise.

Sd/-

¶42

RR

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

WPC 1789/23

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1789/2023

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 3.06.2013 ALONG WITH THE
ESTIMATE.
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE
ESTIMATE AMOUNT REMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON
25.05.2022.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON
13.10.2022.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2022
IN W.P.C NO. 34417 OF 2017
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE WATER BILL ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DATED
11.07.2023

M/S Kent Constructions (Pvt.Ltd) v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kent Constructions (Pvt.Ltd) v. the Executive 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

Umesan P Vs the Secretary

Joshy C.C Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Heba K.R Vs Manu Michael

1. Lekshmy Sreedhar Vs Vasantha

Vincent. P Vs Mohan K.G , (Age and Father’S Name Not Known to the Petitioner)

Mahin K Vs Kerala Water Authority