IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P.CHALY, J.
Antony C. L., S/o. Louis – Respondent
Versus
Kerala Water Authority – Respondent
WP(C) No. 4972 of 2023
Decided on : 04-04-2023
Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 - Section 2(xa), 2(xva), 38A - Seeking to quash - Supply of water for domestic purposes - Petitioner to submit an application for water connection, and deposit amount for laying Contributory Street Main Extension (CSME) Pipeline - Whether main extension requested is necessary for effecting house connection applied for - if the length of such SME exceeds 30 meters provisions contained in Appendix 'B' to the Regulations 1991 shall apply to such extensions (Para 6).
Finding of the day:
Apartment in question occupied by the petitioner and others are entitled to get a domestic/house connection; and the petitioner cannot be insisted to apply for a CSME connection for basic reason that the apartment in question will not come under the definition of flat or multi-storied building. Even though the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority has a contention that the Assistant Executive Engineer is vested with powers to form an opinion that, if pressure in the main is not sufficient, no house connection need be granted. First of all, the Assistant Executive Engineer while issuing Ext.P7 impugned communication did not have a case that there is no sufficient pressure in the main for providing water connection. Petitioner has a definite case that a main is available in front of the apartment in question and a connection alone needs be provided
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner, one among the owners in occupation of a ground plus 4 floor flat consisting of 8 independent apartments, namely, 'Metro Heights' having a total area of 908.69 M2, evident from Ext.P1 occupancy certificate, has filed the writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P7 order, dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Sub Division, Kochi, directing the petitioner to submit an application for water connection, and deposit the amount for laying Contributory Street Main Extension (CSME) Pipeline in order to process the representation, dated 06.01.2023 made by the petitioner, on the basis of the direction issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C.) No.40134/2022, dated 12.02.2022; and for other consequential reliefs.
2. Brief facts for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-
Petitioner owns two flats, and other owners of the apartments are one Roopesh K.R. and Subhadhra.
According to the petitioner, three other flat owners are residing abroad. Petitioner has produced Ext.P2 property tax receipt and Ext.P3 ownership certificate to establish the possession and ownership of the flat in question. The case projected by the petitioner is that the Kerala Water Authority has not provided a service connection to the residential apartment and therefore, petitioner and the other occupants of the flat are using filtered well water to meet their day to day requirements. Therefore, according to the petitioner, for and on behalf of the residents of the apartment, petitioner filed an application dated 28.04.2022 for a new domestic connection. The case of the petitioner is that the premises where the flat is situated is having an existing water pipe connection through a ¾ pipe in the name of Subhadra. However, the connection is lying idle without being connected to the premises in question. It is the contention of the petitioner that a pipeline laid by the Kerala Water Authority for the purpose of giving general water supply connection is available in front of the residential complex and the pressure in the main line is sufficient for providing water connection. It is further submitted that even though petitioner made earnest efforts to secure a connection, the third respondent was not taking any action and therefore, petitioner had to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.40134/2022, which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment, dated 12.12.2022 directing the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. It was thereafter that Ext.P7 impugned notice was issued to the petitioner to apply for a CSME connection. According to the petitioner, petitioner is not liable to apply for a CSME connection for expending huge amounts since, the residential apartment complex occupied by the petitioner and others would not come under the term flat as provided under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act, 1986'); and therefore, Section 38A of the Act, 1986 would not come into play, so as to apply for a CSME connection. It is further submitted that petitioner and other residents of the apartment in question are entitled to get the connection from the existing line and they are not liable to pay for a CSME connection.
3. The submission of the Kerala Water Authority is that the apartment complex of the petitioner would come under the definition of multi-storied building defined under the Act, 1986, since the entire apartment complex is exceeding five or more units, or having a total plinth area of 500 square meters or more; and therefore the petitioner is liable to apply for a CSME connection. Being so, according to the Kerala Water Authority, Ext.P7 communication issued by the Water Authority is in order and there is no illegality or arbitrariness requiring interference in a writ proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel has also invited my attention to Regulation 6 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991 (for short, 'the Regulations, 1991
SupremeToday
Section 38 of the Act, 1986 deals with supply of water by the Authority.
The definition of 'multi-storied building' under the Act necessitates that the use be for non-domestic activities, which the petitioner's building failed to satisfy.
The necessity of providing temporary water connections to apartment complexes under the Kerala Water Supply Act is affirmed.
The court ruled that a building cannot be classified as 'multistoried' under the Act without meeting specified conditions for non-domestic usage, regardless of total plinth area.
Multi-storied buildings are subject to specific water connection requirements; the court determined the respondents' building does not fall into this category.
Municipal authorities retain discretion over water supply connections; disputes between co-owners do not violate fundamental rights.
A separate water supply connection cannot be demanded for a building already serviced by an existing connection unless a formal partition of the property is established between the current holder and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.