Delhi High Court
Divya Sharma vs Delhi Jal Board on 28 March, 2017
28
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2831/2017 & CM APPL. 12348/2017
DIVYA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudeep Dey, Advocate with
Ms. Rashmi, Advocate.
versus
DELHI JAL BOARD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumit Pushkarna, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 28th March, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent-
DJB to grant a new water connection to the petitioner in property bearing
No.A-5/63-D, Fourth Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
2. It has been averred in the petition that since November, 2014,
occupant of the ground floor of the aforesaid building is preventing the
petitioner from using water from the connection provided by the respondent-
DJB.
3. It has been further averred that petitioner filed a civil suit being RCA
No.5/2015 with regard to the aforesaid grievance, but the same was
dismissed vide order dated 20th January, 2016 on the ground that property in
question is unauthorised and illegal.
4. It has also been averred that the petitioner filed second appeal being
RSA No.92/2016 against the aforesaid order, but the same was dismissed as
not pressed.
5. It is the petitioner's case that vide application dated 04th December,
2014, petitioner applied for a fresh water connection, but the same has not
been granted till date.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner states that non-consideration of
petitioner's application for grant of new water connection is violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, he relies upon a
judgment of this Court in Raju vs. Delhi Jal Board, Through its Chief
Executive Officer & Anr., W.P.(C) 267/2016.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-DJB emphasises
that the petitioner's property does not have any permission/sanction from
DDA. He states that if water connection is granted to the respondent, then it
will give a huge boost to illegal and unauthorised construction in Delhi.
8. As the petitioner admits that he has carried out illegal and
unauthorised construction, this Court is of the view that he cannot invoke the
high prerogative writ jurisdiction as the said jurisdiction is available to those
who approach the Courts with clean hands.
9. In Raju (Supra) case the Court dealt with a situation where there was
only a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property. The property in
Raju (Supra) case was not illegal or unauthorised or constructed on
encroached land. This Court clarifies that in the Raju (supra) case it has not
been held that possession of the property is sufficient to seek independent
water connection. The aforesaid view of the Court is also in consonance
with Section 9 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998.
10. Consequently, present writ petition and application, being bereft of
merits, are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 28, 2017
js
