Kerala High Court
Anil Mathew vs The Kerala Water Authority on 25 June, 2025
W.A.No.408 of 2021 1 2025:KER:45253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25
DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA,
1947
WA NO. 408 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.11765 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS NO.1 & 2:
1
NIL MATHEW
A
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. K.V.MATHAI, KOZHAKKATTUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
SPXII/193(9), PALATHARA, POWDIKONAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 588.
2
R.SAKTHIBABU.R.L.,
D
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. RATNAKARAN THAMPI, TCX/2024 (I), PALATHARA,
POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 588.
Y ADVS.
B
SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF
SMT.MOLLY JACOB
SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI
ESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 &
R
PETITIONERS NO.3 & 4:
1
HE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
T
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN,
W.A.No.408 of 2021 2 2025:KER:45253
ELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
V
KERALA,PIN-695 033
2
HE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
T
WATER WORKS, WEST SUB DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PONGAMOODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-605011
3
HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
T
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION
BUILDING, COLLECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 045
4
REAMLAND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
D
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POWDIKONAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 588
5
IRIJA RAJEEVAN NAMBIAR
G
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. RAJEEVAN NAMBIAR, TC X/2024(2), PALATHARA,
POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 588.
6
MT.DEEPA VISWANATHAN,
S
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O. VISHNU DAS, TC X/2024(3), PALATHARA,
POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 588.
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.P.M.JOHNY
SMT.VARADA K. HARI
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS
WRIT
APPEAL
HAVING
BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
19.06.2025,
THE COURT ON 25.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.408 of 2021 3 2025:KER:45253
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
ThepresentintracourtappealfiledunderSection5oftheKerala
HighCourtAct,1958,assailsthejudgmentdated02.12.2020passedin
W.P(C)No.11765of2019,wherebythelearnedSingleJudgedismissed
the writ petition, holding it to be without force or merit.
2. The appellants/petitioners have filed the writ petition seeking
the following reliefs:
" (i) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get
domestic water connection to their respective residential
houses from the 1st respondentbyvirtueofExt.P6series
work orders.
(ii) to, call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and P7(a)
notices/stopmemoandExt.P12noticeandquashthesame
by invoking writ of certiorari.
(iii) to issue writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents 1 & 2 to
allowthepetitionersproceedwithExt.P6seriesworkorders
so as to get water connection to their premises.
(iv) To issue orders or directionsasthisHon'blecourtmay
deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. The brief facts of the casearethattheappellantsareowners
of residentialplotsandpermanentresidentsofUliyazhathuraVillagein
Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. They are, therefore, entitled to receive
domestic water connections to theirrespectiveresidentialhousesfrom
the1strespondent,byvirtueoftheExt.P6seriesofworkordersissued
W.A.No.408 of 2021 4 2025:KER:45253
bythesaidrespondent.Consequently,theyseektoquashExts.P7and
P7(a), which are notices/stop memos directing that the water
connection not be granted. The connection sought to be taken is
through a private road leading to the plot from Mannanthala -
Powdikonam public road. The Kerala WaterAuthorityevensanctioned
the connections; the 4th respondent - the Residents' Association -
obstructed the work, stating that there was astayorderintheirfavour
from the Civil Court, on the ground that theportionoftheprivateroad
leading to various plots, including those belonging to the appellants,
formed part of their recreational open space. A dispute thus arose
between the parties, and the 4th respondent filed a civil suit, which is
currentlypending,inwhichthepresentappellantsarealsoparties.The
learned Single Judgedismissedthewritpetition,holdingthattheissue
regarding the rights of the petitioners and the members of the 4th
respondent over the private road is to be decided in the civil
proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
learned Single Judge went wrong in observing that the appellants will
have to defend the suit in order to establish their rights, without
considering the fact that they were impleaded in the Civil Suit without
W.A.No.408 of 2021 5 2025:KER:45253
seeking any reliefs against them. Hence thequestionofdefendingthe
suitinordertoestablishtheirrightsdoesnotarise.Thelearnedcounsel
for the appellant, therefore, prayed that this appeal be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the afore
prayer and submittedthatthelearnedSingleJudgehasnotcommitted
any error indismissingthewritpetition,asitisevidentfromtheprayer
clause that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the
issue pertains toeasementaryrights,forwhichthe4threspondenthas
already filed a civil suit, which is presently pending. He further
submitted that two parallel proceedings for the same cause of action
cannotproceedsimultaneously,andtheappellantsarerequiredtoawait
the outcome of the civil suit. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has
rightly dismissed the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants andthelearned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. It is not in dispute that the Civil Suit with regard to the
particularroadispendingconsiderationbeforetheCivilCourtwherethe
W.A.No.408 of 2021 6 2025:KER:45253
appellants are also parties. Therefore, the view taken by the learned
Single Judge cannot be faulted.
Accordingly, the present writ appeal, being bereft of merit and
substance,isherebydismissed.However,thecontentionsraisedbythe
appellantsinthisappealareleftopentoberaisedinthecivilsuit,ifso
advised.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
d/-
S
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
MC/20.6
W.A.No.408 of 2021 7 2025:KER:45253
APPENDIX OF WA 408/2021
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure - R4(a)
RUE
T COPY OF THE SALE DEED
(DOCUMENT
NO.2267/2019)
DATED 09.07.2019 WHEREBY
THE
6TH RESPONDENT PURCHASED PROPERTY
FROM SUDHAKARAN NAIR.
Annexure -R4(b)
TRUE
COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.
185/2021
[UNDATED] ON THE FILE OF
THE
MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure -R4(c)
TRUE
COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER
DATED
08.02.2021 IN I.A. NO.
1/2021 IN
O.S. 185/2021
Annexure -R4(d)
TRUE
COPY OF THE ORDER IN
I.A. NO.
8/2022
IN O.S. 185/2021, DATED
30.03.2022,
ONTHE FILE OFTHE MUNSIFF
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure -R4(e)
TRUE
COPY OF THE PROSECUTION PETITION,
[UNNUMBERED
I.A.] IN O.S. 1579/2017,
DATED
08.04.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure -R4(f)
TRUE
COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
WRIT
PETITION
(CIVIL)
W.P.(C)
NO.
13055/2024
[WITHOUT ANNEXURES] DATED
25.03.2024
ONTHE FILE OFTHIS HON'BLE
COURT
Annexure -R4(g)
TRUE
COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE
COURT
IN
W.P.(C)
NO.
13055/2024 DATED 26.06.2024
