Delhi High Court
Sunita Bhardwaj vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr. on 29 April, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 29th April, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No. 400/2015
SUNITA BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Petitioner in person.
Versus
DELHI JAL BOARD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Jayendra, Advocate for
Respondent No.1 with Mr. Munish Kumar, EE
(SW) III, Mr. V.P. Tanwar, Jt. Director and Mr.
Chattar Singh, ZRO (SW) III.
Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC and Mr. A.N. Singh,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ W.P.(C) No. 400/2015 & CM Nos. 663/2015, 6334/2015 &
7653/2015
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby
directing the respondent No.1 to grant water connection to the
petitioner on her application dated 18.11.2014 bearing
No.1955088811.
2. Petitioner appears in person and states that there are four
apartments in Plot No.1, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi, and she
is residing in Flat No.2 of the aforesaid plot.
3. The respondent No.1/Delhi Jal Board (DJB) has rejected the
case of the petitioner on the ground that as per Regulation 3(e) in
Chapter II of Delhi Water and Sewer (Tariff and Metering
Regulations), 2012, no individual water connection will be
sanctioned to any flat or house and Co-operative Group Housing
Society/Apartment Complex or other domestic/non-domestic
complex, where bulk water connection either exists or is required to
be given under the policy of the Board. As per Regulation 3(g) of
the said Regulation, individual water connection will be sanctioned
for a single dwelling unit/floor subject to maximum of six in a
property. The petitioner is resident of the apartment building
wherein bulk connection is already in existence.
4. While hearing the matter yesterday, i.e., 28.04.2015, at the
request of counsel for the respondent No.1, case was adjourned for
today as said respondent wanted to visit the premises in question for
inspection.
5. Pursuant thereto, it is reported that there exists a bulk water
connection in plot No.2, Rao Tula Ram Marg, which was
sanctioned in February, 1992. It is further stated that there are 40
dwelling houses which are being served by common source, i.e.,
one number Tubewell near dwelling unit No.½ facing Rao Tula
Ram Marg and filter water is provided by the respondent No.1. The
water meter installed on connection given by DJB is found
functional. There is one gate to all residents for exit/entry to the
main road, thus, it is a sort of society.
6. However, respondent No.1/DJB has failed to establish that
the bulk connection has ever been granted in plot No.1, Rao Tula
Ram Marg. On the said plot, there are four apartments and the
petitioner is occupant of one of the apartments thereof. Moreover,
as per Regulation 3 (g) individual water connection is to be
sanctioned for a single dwelling unit / floor subject to maximum of
six in a property.
7. In view of the above recorded facts, it is established that no
bulk connection has ever been granted in favour of the plot No.1,
Rao Tula Ram Marg. Leave aside, respondent no. 1 failed to show
any record that any water connection ever granted in plot no. 1.
8. Accordingly, the respondent No.1/DJB is directed to grant
water connection in favour of the petitioner within a period of four
weeks from receipt of this order and respondent No.2 will not create
any hindrance in granting the said water connection.
9. As stated by the petitioner property in question, i.e., plot
No.1, Rao Tula Ram Marg, is having completion certificate (Forms
'C' and 'D'), as averred in the rejoinder also. Therefore, charges if
any applicable over the property having completion certificate, shall
be borne by the petitioner, if not already paid.
10. In view of the above observations, the petition is allowed.
Consequently, pending applications stand disposed of.
11. Order dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 29, 2015
Sb/jg
