Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
ANTONY C.L. – Appellant
Versus
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4972 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DILEEP VARGHESE, TESMY VARGHEESE
For the Respondents: SRI. GEORGIE JOHNY
Residential apartments classified under Act must comply with specific definitions to qualify for water supply conditions.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 - Sections 2(xa), 2(xva), 37, 38, and 38A - Water connection for residential apartment - The owner of a residential apartment sought water connection but was directed to apply for CSME connection based on the Water Authority's interpretation of building classification. Court finds that the apartment does not constitute a flat or multi-storied building under the Act, thus entitled to a domestic connection without the application for CSME. (Paras 5 to 8)
(B) Jurisdiction in Writ Petitions - Writ jurisdiction is exercised for quashing illegal or arbitrary orders and ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns an apartment in a complex, contended the Water Authority's directive to apply for CSME connection was unfounded as it does not fall under the classification imposed by the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the apartment does not meet the definitions set forth in law for requiring a CSME connection and is entitled to receive a domestic water connection instead.
Issues: Whether the water supply authority correctly classified the apartment complex as a multi-storied building requiring a CSME connection versus the petitioner's claim for a standard water connection.
Ratio Decidendi: Provided the definitions of 'flat' and 'multi-storied building' in the Act, the clear lack of fit of the petitioner’s apartment into these categories held paramount significance in the court’s decision-making process.
Result: Writ petition allowed; direction for domestic water connection issued.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought quashing of water authority's order for a connection application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. kerala water authority argued the building qualified for csme connection. (Para 3) |
| 3. court provided definitions clarifying building classifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court ruled the petitioner is entitled to a domestic connection. (Para 7) |
| 5. writ petition allowed with directives to comply with regulations. (Para 8) |
'C.R.'
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; a
