Disposed

T.Jyothi Bai, v. The Hyderabad Metropolitian Water Works and -

Telangana HC13 Jul 2012WP/20758/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal of separate water connection to her portion of premises. Court ruled Chief Engineer is empowered under Rule 15 to sanction multiple connections in special circumstances and permitted further representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; petitioner permitted to submit further representation to Chief Engineer within three weeks for consideration under Rule 15.

T.Jyothi Bai, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitian Water… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20758 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage Board appearing for the respondents.

¶4

In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not giving water connection to the petitioner’s portion of premises bearing No.11-1-81/C, Mylargadda, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad, in spite of her representation, dated 19.06.2012, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that her father-in-law, by name, Raja Ram, is the owner of premises bearing No.11-1-81, in which, there are eight portions. He had seven sons. It is stated that one

¶6

Sri Tuljaram is the eldest son of Sri Raja Ram and the petitioner is the wife of the said Tuljaram. It is also stated that as the petitioner is staying in one of the portions of the said premises, which is in the name of her father-in-law, due to some misunderstandings with the family members,

¶7

she is facing inconvenience for lack of separate water connection to her portion. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though she made a representation by paying necessary fees by way of demand draft, no steps have been taken by the respondents to consider her request.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply Rules, 1990, the Chief Engineer is empowered to consider for grant of additional water connection in the special circumstances. In spite of the same, no steps are being taken, on the request of the petitioner.

¶9

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that as per the Rules in force, only one water connection is permitted for each house and merely because there are some differences among the family members, the petitioner cannot request this Court to issue directions to the respondents for grant of a separate water connection to a portion of the house, in which, she is staying.

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Rules titled as Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply Rules, 1990 framed under sub-section (1) of

¶11

Section 79 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989.

¶12

It is true that one water connection is permissible for one house. But, a perusal of Rule 15 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply Rules, 1990, indicates that the Chief Engineer is empowered, in the special circumstances to be recorded in writing, to sanction more than one connection. In view of the same, if the petitioner approaches the Chief Engineer, it is for the competent authority to consider her request and take appropriate decision.

¶13

In view of aforesaid Rule position, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit further representation to the Chief Engineer and also to Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage Board, within a period of three weeks from today. If any such representation is filed by paying necessary fees, the competent authority shall consider the matter in the light of Rule 15 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply Rules, 1990 and take appropriate decision on the request of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶14

Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

No order as to costs.

¶16

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26612 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶17

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13^th JULY, 2012. kvni

T.Jyothi Bai, v. The Hyderabad Metropolitian Water Works and -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Jyothi Bai, v. The Hyderabad Metropolitian Water Works and -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Sudhakar Rao Vs The Municipal corporation of Nizamabad

G. Ramesh Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pullemla Yadamma, Vs The Gram Panchayat Narketpalli

Alka Sinha Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shri S.Venkat Rao, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

U. Gowri Bai, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh