Kerala High Court
Vitalis Maria Mathew vs V.M.Tessy on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA,
1942
Con.Case(C).No.1948 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27684/2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27684/2019(I) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
VITALIS MARIA MATHEW, AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, RESDIING AT KAVALAKKAL HOUSE,
EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, EDAKOCHI P.O, KOCHIN 682
010
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.S.SREERAJ
SRI.K.BIJU
SRI.M.C.VARGHESE
SHRI.SYAM K.P.
SMT.RADHU S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 V.M.TESSY, AGED 50 YEARS
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA
WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS, SUB DIVISION,
KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI 5
2 SOJAN JACOB, AGED 50 YEARS
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KEREALA WATER
AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS, SUB DIVISION,
KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI 5
R1-2 BY SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA
WATER AUTHORITY
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont. Case (C) No.1948 of 2020
..2..
Contempt Case (C) No.1948 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This proceedings is instituted alleging wilful
disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.27684 of 2019.
2. The writ petition was one instituted seeking
directions to the officials of the Kerala Water Authority to
provide a water connection to the petitioner.
3. It is seen that when the matter was taken up,
the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority
submitted that water connection can be given to the petitioner
from the water line passing slightly away from the building of
the petitioner, provided the petitioner is prepared to bear the
cost of drawing the line. The petitioner agreed to bear the cost
of drawing line and the writ petition was accordingly disposed
of directing the Water Authority to provide water connection to
the petitioner within a period of two months. As noted, it is
alleging wilful disobedience of the said direction that this
Contempt of Court Case is filed.
Cont. Case (C) No.1948 of 2020
..3..
4. An affidavit has been filed by the concerned
official of the Kerala Water Authority. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of
the said affidavit read thus:
"5. On 15.01.2020, the 2nd respondent has
addressed the Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD Road Sub
Division, Ernakulam to accord sanction for road cutting at a
length of 5 meters at Kannangatt Temple Road Junction in
Pambai Moola, Eda Kochi for providing water supply
connection to the petitioner, the copy of which was
forwarded to the petitioner, since necessary charges for
restoration has to be remitted by the petitioner. Since no
permission was made available, the Asst. Executive Engineer
was reminded again on 9.12.2020 and a copy was served on
the petitioner. For getting road cutting sanction, the
Secretary, Corporation of Kochi was also addressed and the
matter was reminded.
6. It is humbly submitted that physical water
connection can be given by laying pipiline under the road for
which road cutting permission is necessary and necessary
charges for road restoration has to be remitted in the
respective offices and it is the responsibility of the petitioner
to avail the sanction. Not only that the copies of the letters
and the reminders were sent to the petitioner but also to the
counsel on 7.8.2020 who sent lawyer's notice which is
marked as Annexure D in the contempt petition. No initiative
was taken by the petitioner in getting the same."
As evident from the extracted paragraphs of the affidavit, the
inability on the part of the Water Authority in complying with
Cont. Case (C) No.1948 of 2020
..4..
the direction is on account of the failure on the part of the
petitioner in remitting the charges payable to the Public Works
Department and also to the Corporation of Kochi for restoration
of the roads which are to be cut for drawing the water line to
the building of the petitioner. The question as to who should
bear the said charges has not been adjudicated in the
judgment. As such, it cannot be said that the inaction to
comply with the direction issued by this court is wilful.
The Contempt of Court Case, in the circumstances,
is closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to
institute proceedings again under the Contempt of Courts Act,
if the direction is not complied with even after the petitioner
remitting the road cutting charges.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
ds 20.01.2021
Cont. Case (C) No.1948 of 2020
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
27684/2019
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ELTTER DATED 3-08-
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 7-08-2020
