M/S Kent Constructions (Pvt.Ltd) vs The Executive Engineer
2023 Latest Caselaw 10225 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 1789 OF 2023


PETITIONER:

          M/S KENT CONSTRUCTIONS (PVT.LTD), KENT HAIL GARDENS,
          FIRST FLOOR, STADIUM LINK ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O,
          KOCHI. REPT. BY ITS DIRECTOR K.C RAJU, S/O LATE K.L
          CYRIL, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. B3, KENT
          NALUKETTU, VENNALA P.O-682028, PIN - 682025

          BY ADVS.
          SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL
          AMALENDU A.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
          ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION,
          KOCHI, PIN - 682016

    2     THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
          WATER WORK SUB DIVISION,KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682016

    3     THE SUPERINTENT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
          HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682011

          BY ADV GEORGIE JOHNY


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 1789/23
                                         2




                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a builder and seeks that the

Kerala Water Authority be directed to provide water connection to a

complex constructed by them, without insisting on Contributory

Street Main Extension (CSME), because the nearby complex - which

has also been constructed by them - already abides by the same.

2. Sri.Saji Varghese - learned counsel for the petitioner,

explained that the two complexes in question are in the same

compound; and therefore, that it will be possible for the Water

Authority to grant water connection to the new one from the earlier

CSME which had been taken in favour of the first construction,

without any impediment. He vehemently argued that since both

constructions are part of the same complex, his client's request in

this Writ Petition is wholly tenable.

3. In response, Sri.Georgie Johny - learned Standing

Counsel for the Water Authority, submitted that, though there is no

legal inhibition in acceding to the afore request of the petitioner, WPC 1789/23

the fact remains that it can be acceded to by his client only if the

Association or the owners of the apartments of the first complex

agree to the same. He added that, on the contrary, they have

already raised objections against the request of the petitioner and

therefore, that it cannot be agreed to.

4. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions on the

touchstone of various documents and materials available on record.

5. As already narrated, the petitioner's specific case is that

the two buildings are part of the same complex and therefore, that

they can be given water connection from the CSME, which had

been availed of, while the first among them had been constructed.

As is also noted, the Water Authority also agrees that there is no

statutory impediment to this, but that the concurrence of the

Association/owners of the first complex, through a 'No Objection

Certificate' (NOC), will have to be obtained.

6. This appears to be a justified reason that they should not

be faced with scarcity, if the CSME availed for their benefit is now

extended to the second complex also.

7. In the afore perspective, I am certain that the Water WPC 1789/23

Authority must hear both sides and take a final decision. It will not

be permissible for them to abdicate their responsibility saying that

the petitioner must obtain 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the

Association/owners of the apartments of the fist complex, but they

must deal with any objection made, or to be made, in terms of

law.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and

direct the competent Authority of the Kerala Water Authority to

consider the claim of the petitioner for affording water connection

to the new complex from the CSME connection given to the earlier

one, however, after hearing them, as also the authorised persons of

the Association of the former complex; which shall be done and an

appropriate order issued, as expeditiously as is possible, but not

later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Needless to say, all relevant issues, including as to whether

the owners of the first constructed complex would be construed to

be 'contributories' within the ambit of the Rules applicable to the

Kerala Water Authority, are left open to be decided during the WPC 1789/23

afore exercise.

Sd/-

RR                    DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                           JUDGE
 WPC 1789/23


                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1789/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST

RESPONDENT ON 3.06.2013 ALONG WITH THE ESTIMATE.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ESTIMATE AMOUNT REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 25.05.2022.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 13.10.2022.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 IN W.P.C NO. 34417 OF 2017 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WATER BILL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.07.2023