Kerala High Court
Varghese vs The Kerala Water Authority on 16 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37908 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
VARGHESE, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. BANAVANTHURAN,
RESIDING AT ACHARU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPORT P.O,
CONVENT WEST, PIN - 683515
R.RANJANIE
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
NJARACKAL, KOCHI- REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PIN - 682503
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682030
3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(GENERAL), COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682030
4 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(GENERAL), COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682030
5 THE PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
GRAMA SEVA KENDRAM, PALLIPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 688541
6 GOVINDAN, VADAPURATH, PALLIPORT.P.O.,
CONVENT WEST, PIN - 683515
7 YESUDAS, MADATHIPARAMBIL, PALLIPORT.P.O.,
CONVENT WEST -, PIN - 683515
8 ROCKY MATHAI, ,MADATHIPARAMBIL,
PALLIPORT.P.O., CONVENT WEST, PIN - 683515
WP(C) NO. 37908 OF 2023
2
SRI.V.V.JOSHY - SC
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 37908 OF 2023
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner assails Ext.P5 order, issued by the 3rd
respondent - Additional District Magistrate ('ADM', for short),
allowing the Kerala Water Authority ('KWA', for short) to draw a
pipeline through his property for the benefit of the 6 th
respondent. He alleges that this has been done without
adverting to the fact that there is a common pathway available,
through which the pipeline could have been laid, but that it
appears to have been given up solely because of the objections
raised by respondents 7 and 8. He thus contends that Ext.P5 is
illegal and unlawful; and prays that it be set aside.
2. Sri.V.V.Joshy - learned Standing Counsel for the KWA,
submitted that his client will abide by any directions to be
issued by either the ADM or by this Court, because their duty is
only to ensure that water connection is offered to a consumer as
per law.
3. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Governement
Pleader, in response to the afore submissions of the petitioner,
as made by his learned counsel - Smt.R.Ranjanie, submitted
that, as is evident from Ext.P5, he was also heard before it was
WP(C) NO. 37908 OF 2023
issued; and that the sketch through which the water line has to
be drawn, has also been earmarked. He submitted that since the
petitioner will not suffer from any prejudice, even if the pipeline
is to be drawn through the said alignment - it being laid
underground, his challenge to Ext.P5 is untenable and
unnecessary.
4. When I examine Ext.P5, it is clear that the alternative
suggested by the petitioner, of drawing the pipeline through the
common pathway has not been accepted by the 3 rd respondent
ADM, because the Assistant Engineer of the KWA made a report
that it is not convenient for it to be done. The ADM thereafter
appears to have taken a decision that, since the grant of a
drinking water connection to the 5th respondent is a human
right, it requires to be done through the property of the
petitioner.
5. I must say that the intention of the ADM is certainly
without error. At first blush, no one can stand in the way of
another person being afforded a drinking water connection, if it
would cause him no prejudice because it remains underground
and without any right being asserted on it by either the KWA or
the petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 37908 OF 2023
6. However, in the case at hand, Smt.R.Ranjanie makes
certain submissions which point out the specific difficulties
faced by her client; but I notice that it has not been considered
or dealt with in Ext.P5. I do not propose to speak on it
affirmatively because, am certain that, since it involves
assessment of facts and other factual circumstances, the ADM
should advert to them also.
7. As matters now stand, Ext.P5 merely relies upon the
report of the Assistant Engineer of the KWA, who reported that
the running of the water line through the pathway is not
feasible. Even this does not reflect any affirmative conclusion in
the impugned order.
8. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the ADM to
reconsider the matter, after hearing petitioner and respondents
6 to 8; thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order adverting
to all contentions of the rival parties, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
It must be kept in mind by the ADM that since this Court
WP(C) NO. 37908 OF 2023
has not issued notice to the sixth respondent - beneficiary, the
afore time frame will be scrupulously complied with, because
his right to obtain a water connection must be acceded to
quickly.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 37908 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37908/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING
THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES OF
THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT 5 TO 7,
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER, SITUATED IN KOZHUPPULLY
VILLAGE, PALLIPPURAM,
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
16.08.2023 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT,
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
7.10.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT,
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
31.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT,
