Disposed¶37

Deepa Kumari v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2025CWP/10052/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Water connection disconnection and restoration; developer/builder; maintenance charges arrears; unauthorised colony; SDM Kharar order 27.01.2025; duty magistrate; SHO direction; mandamus under Article 226/227 Constitution of India; access to potable water as basic right; CWP-10052-2025; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; disposed 08.05.2025; Deepa Kumari v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: the petitioner's water connection stands restored (confirmed by the State counsel and not disputed); respondent No.6 is to abide by its counsel's assurance of no disconnection of water or electricity; liberty reserved to respondent No.6 to pursue legal recourse for arrears; no further direction passed. ¶37

Deepa Kumari Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether directions (mandamus) should issue upon respondents No.4 and 5 to ensure compliance of the order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) of the SDM, Kharar, restoring the petitioner's disconnected water connection. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Court treated access to potable water as a basic right of the petitioner essential for survival, and acted on that basis despite the State's stand that the colony is unauthorised.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

By interim order dated 24.04.2025, the Court forthwith directed respondent no.3-SDM, Kharar, to appoint a duty magistrate for restoring the petitioner's water connection, and directed the SHO concerned to ensure the builder does not disconnect it in future.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Court declined to consider the inter se dispute between the builder and the petitioner (including maintenance arrears and the unauthorised-colony question), leaving that point open.obiter¶22
Since the petitioner's water connection had already been restored and respondent No.6 made a specific submission that it had no intention to disconnect the water or electricity connection, no further direction was required to be passed at that stage.ratio¶35
Liberty was reserved to respondent No.6 to take appropriate legal recourse for redressal of its grievance regarding arrears, and respondent No.6 was required to abide by the assurance made by its counsel.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J.), CWP-10052-2025, decided 08.05.2025 — Writ petition under Article 226/227 by Deepa Kumari seeking directions to respondents No.4 and 5 to enforce the SDM, Kharar's order dated 27.01.2025 restoring her disconnected water connection. By interim order dated 24.04.2025, treating access to potable water as a basic right for survival, the Court directed the SDM to appoint a duty magistrate for restoration and the SHO to prevent future disconnection by the builder, while expressly declining to enter the builder–petitioner dispute over arrears or the State's stand that the colony is unauthorised. On 08.05.2025 the State confirmed restoration and respondent No.6 (developer) undertook not to disconnect water or electricity; the Court held no further direction necessary, reserved liberty to the developer to seek legal recourse for arrears, required it to abide by its counsel's assurance, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

111 CWP-10052-2025 Date of Decision : May 08, 2025

DEEPA KUMARI

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶8

Present: Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶10

Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.6.

¶11

¶12

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The prayer embodied in the instant writ petition appertains to issuance of directions upon the respondents No.4 and 5, to ensure compliance of the order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) being made by the respondent No.6- developer, inasmuch as, vide the said order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar, has directed to restore the petitioner’s disconnected water connection.

¶14

On 24.04.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶15

“Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondents no.4 and 5 to get compliance of interim order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-6), wherethrough, the respondent no.3-SDM, Kharar, has directed to restore the water supply of the present petitioner.

¶16

At the time of issuance of notice vide order dated 07.04.2025, a specific direction was passed upon the learned State counsel, to get the reply filed, by way of an affidavit of

¶17

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

CWP-10052-2025

¶19

¶20

respondent no.3, disclosing therein, as to why, the order (supra), has not been complied with till date.

¶21

Today, learned State counsel, on instructions imparted to him by SI Harvinder Singh, P.S.Kharar, and Mr. Navdeep Kumar, Ahlmad to SDM, Kharar, informs this Court that after passing of the interim order (supra) another final order has been passed, wherethrough, the directions of restoring water connection was maintained, however, a further direction has been passed upon the petitioner to clear the outstanding maintenance charges towards the builder concerned.

¶22

Be that as it may be, this at this stage, this Court is not considering the inter se dispute between the builder and the petitioner, specifically, when the State has come up with a stand that the colony in question is not an authorised one, however, considering the fact that access to potable water is a basic right of the petitioner for its survival, forthwith directs the respondent no.3-SDM, Kharar, to appoint a duty magistrate for restoring the water connection of the present petitioner, and the SHO concerned is also directed to ensure that in future the said connection shall not be disconnected by the builder concerned.

¶23

The compliance report be filed on or before the next date of hearing.

¶24

Adjourned to 08.05.2025.

¶25

To be shown in the urgent list.

¶26

It is made clear that no further request for an adjournment shall be entertained on the next date of hearing, on behalf of either of the parties.”

¶27

Today, the learned State counsel informs this Court that, the

¶28

water connection of the petitioner has been restored. This submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

At this stage, Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate, records his appearance on behalf of the respondent No.6, under a memorandum of appearance instituted before this Court today, and, as prayed for, he is permitted to file a validly executed Vakalatnama in his favour by the

¶30

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶31

CWP-10052-2025

¶32

¶33

respondent concerned within 15 days before Registry of this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that, water connection of the petitioner was never disconnected, rather she is in arrears for the last one year and therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. He further submits that, they do not have any intention to disconnect either the water or electricity connection of the petitioner.

¶35

Since the water connection of the petitioner has already been restored, and, the respondent No.6 has made a specific submission before this Court that, they do not have any intention to disconnect the water or electricity connection of the petitioner, hence no further direction is required to be passed at this stage.

¶36

However, in case, the respondent No.6 has any grievance with regard to arrears, liberty is reserved to him to take the apposite legal recourse for redressal thereof. Moreover, the respondent No.6 shall abide by the assurance (supra) made by his counsel.

¶37

8. Disposed of accordingly.

¶38

May 08, 2025	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶39

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar, directing restoration of the petitioner's disconnected water connection; the writ petition sought directions to respondents No.4 and 5 to ensure its compliance.¶13
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar · 27.01.2025
Prior proceeding
Notice was issued vide order dated 07.04.2025, with a specific direction upon the learned State counsel to get the reply filed by way of an affidavit of respondent no.3 disclosing why the order dated 27.01.2025 had not been complied with till date.¶16
Prior proceeding
After the interim order, another final order was passed whereby the direction to restore the water connection was maintained, with a further direction upon the petitioner to clear outstanding maintenance charges towards the builder.¶21
Prior proceeding
By interim order dated 24.04.2025 this Court directed respondent no.3-SDM, Kharar, to appoint a duty magistrate for restoring the petitioner's water connection, and directed the SHO concerned to ensure the builder does not disconnect it in future; compliance report was ordered before the next hearing fixed for 08.05.2025.¶22
Prior proceeding
The State came up with a stand that the colony in question is not an authorised one.¶22
Prior proceeding
On 08.05.2025 the learned State counsel informed the Court that the petitioner's water connection had been restored; the submission was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel.¶28
Prior proceeding
Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate, recorded appearance on behalf of respondent No.6 under a memorandum of appearance instituted that day, with liberty to file a validly executed Vakalatnama within 15 days before the Registry.¶29
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.6's counsel submitted that the water connection was never disconnected, that the petitioner is in arrears for the last one year (which prompted the writ petition), and that they have no intention to disconnect the petitioner's water or electricity connection.¶34

Deepa Kumari v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Kumari v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Singh Brar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jasvir Kaur Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Rd Enterprises Vs State of Punjab and Others

New Malwa Sales Corporation Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bikram Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another