Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor,
President & Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
GOEL S. PAL—Appellant
versus
ZONAL ENGINEER, WATER DEPARTMENT, MCD—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 389 of 1994—Decided 6.1.2005
Existence of a water connection without water supply is meaningless, and the respondent is obligated to ensure water supply or sanction a new water connection.
Headnote:
Water Connection - Industrial Premises - The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to ensure water supply in the original water connection or sanction a new water connection for the appellant within one month.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's application for a new water connection for his industrial premises was rejected, and his complaint to the District Forum was dismissed due to the existing water connection having no water supply.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the existence of the original water connection was meaningless without water supply, and therefore allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to ensure water supply or sanction a new water connection for the appellant.
Issues: Existence of water supply in the original water connection, rejection of application for a new water connection, and dismissal of appellant's complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the existence of a water connection without water supply is meaningless, and therefore directed the respondent to ensure water supply or sanction a new water connection for the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to ensure water supply in the original water connection or sanction a new water connection for the appellant within one month.
Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—The main grievance of the appellant is that there is no water in the water connection installed in his industrial premises. His application for new water connection was rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 12th July, 1993 on the ground that a fresh water connection for the same premises cannot be sanctioned as already a water connection is existing in the premises. When he approached the District Forum, his complaint was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.7.1994.
2. Through this appeal, he has sought redressal of his grievance, inasmuch as that the existence of the original connection given is of no use because of there being no water supply.
3. If there is no water supply in the water connection, existence of the said water connection is meaningless. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with the direction to the respondent to see that there is a water supply in the original water connection and if there is no possibility of water being supplied through the original water connection, the respondent shall sanction a new water connection in the name of the appellant who is occupying the premises as a tenant. This exercise shall be completed within one month.
4. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.
5. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Appeal disposed of.
–––
