Sh. Durga Prasad vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4509 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of decision: 24th September, 2010.

+                           W.P.(C) No.6912/2009

%

SH. DURGA PRASAD                                      ..... PETITIONER
                            Through:      Mr. V.P. Singh Charak with Ms.
                                          Shubhra Parashar & Mr. P.P.
                                          Singh, Advocates

                                     Versus

THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.        ..... RESPONDENTS
                  Through: Ms. Manisha Narain, Advocate for
                           respondent no.3/MCD.
                           Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate for
                           Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate
                           for respondent no.4/DJB.
                           Mr. P. Mallikarjuna with Mr.
                           Saleem Ahmed, Advocates along
                           with Inspector J.D. Meena for
                           respondents 5,6 & 7.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                   No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?            No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported           No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be a resident of house No.G-209A, Sangam

Vihar, New Delhi. The respondent no.4 Delhi Jal Board (DJB) is informed

to have installed tube-wells in the said colony of Sangam Vihar for supply

of water to the residents of the colony. The petitioner claims that one

such tube-well is installed in the gali / passage in front of house No.G-

202, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi of the respondent no.2. The petitioner

admits that the residents of the Block have laid their own pipelines for

receiving water from the said tube-well in their houses. The grievance of

the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 is controlling the supply of water

through the said tube-well and illegally charging the residents for the

water supply; the petitioner contends that upon the petitioner refusing to

pay the increased charges illegally demanded by the respondent no.2, the

respondent no.2 has disconnected the supply of water from the said tube-

well to the house of the petitioner. The representations of the petitioner to

the various authorities having resulted in no relief to the petitioner, the

present petition has been filed for direction to various authorities to ensure

supply of water through the said tube-well to the house of the petitioner.

2. The respondent no.4 DJB has filed a status report / affidavit stating

that there being no municipal supply of water to the colony as yet, it has

dug tube-wells in the said colony; that the supply of water through the

said tube-wells is free of costs; that the said tube-wells are electrified and

not manned by the respondent no.4 DJB on normal basis as they are run

on an automatic system in place, to switch on at stipulated hours and

switch off thereafter; that it has not laid down any pipelines for supply of

water to individual houses from the said tube-wells; however the residents

of the colony have laid down their own private GI pipe network for supply

of water from the tube-wells to their own houses; there is no sanction

from the respondent no.4 DJB for the same. The respondent no.4 DJB has

further stated that it is not in position to supervise and control the supply

of water from the said tube-wells and the only action which it can take if

directed by this Court is to disconnect the entire GI pipeline laid by the

residents for supply of water to their respective houses from the tube-well

and in which case all residents will have to come to the point of the tube-

wells to collect water. It is further informed that the work of construction

of underground reservoir and pumping station with peripheral line is in

progress and is likely to be commissioned by the year 2011 depending

upon availability of water from the neighbouring State.

3. The SHO PS Sangam Vihar (respondent no.7) has also filed a status

report stating that respondent no.4 DJB has approximately 68 tube-wells /

hand-pumps in Sangam Vihar and which have been handed over to local

leaders who supply water in a discriminatory manner and charge in the

name of electricity / maintenance charges. It has further been stated that

several other water disputes are reported from the said colony.

4. The respondent no.3 MCD has filed a counter affidavit to the effect

that it has nothing to do with the matter.

5. The respondent no.2 has also filed a counter affidavit stating that

the petitioner is a mischievous person with a criminal record; that while

she leads one set of residents of the colony, the petitioner leads the other;

that there are five tube-wells in the G-Block of Sangam Vihar and of

which one is looked after by the petitioner, three others by some other

persons and one in front of the house of respondent no.2 by her; that the

respondent no.4 DJB has put a timer and lock on each of the tube-wells;

she has denied that she is charging anything from the residents as alleged

by the petitioner; on the contrary it is averred that the petitioner who has a

number of tenants in his house and has been charging his tenants for water

has been unnecessarily making complaints against the respondent no.2 for

ulterior motives.

6. The concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate (Kalkaji) (respondent

no.9) has also filed a counter affidavit washing his hands off the dispute.

7. In the aforesaid state of affairs, finding that the grievance of the

petitioner was with respect to law and order problem allegedly created by

the respondent no.2, it was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as

to what order could be made. It was felt that no order could be made

against any of the agencies or against the respondent no.2 inasmuch as it

would entail a continuous duty which the Court cannot supervise.

Neither was it found possible as suggested by the counsel for the

petitioner to post a police personnel at each tube-well. The matter was

therefore adjourned asking the counsel for the petitioner to come up with a

suggestion as to an implementable order which could be made in the

present proceedings.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has not made any suggestion. On the

contrary, he has stated that the respondent no.4 DJB should be asked to

place before this Court their policy with respect to the tube-wells. No

merit is found in the said suggestion of the counsel for the petitioner. The

respondent no.4 DJB in its affidavit has already informed that though the

colony does not have the municipal water supply but to provide the

amenity of water to the residents, tube-wells have been dug. There is thus

no question of any policy.

9. The disputes raised by the petitioner are essentially factual disputes.

There is admittedly animosity between the petitioner and the respondent

no.2. The petitioner has sought to drag the various agencies in the said

dispute. The same cannot be permitted. The petitioner has been privy to

laying of private pipeline network for supply of water to individual

residences from the tube-well. The same was not provided by respondent

no.4 DJB. The offer of respondent no.4 DJB of disconnecting the said

network cannot also be accepted inasmuch as the same would prejudice a

large number of residents of the colony and who are not before this Court.

10. The question whether the respondent no.2 is interfering in any

manner whatsoever with the supply of water from the tube-well in front of

her house and / or whether the petitioner also is guilty of similar action

with respect to another tube-well are questions of fact which cannot be

gone into in the present proceedings. The writ remedy is not found to be a

proper remedy in the circumstances.

11. The petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable with liberty

to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy to have the factual

controversy adjudicated. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 24th September, 2010 'gsr'..