SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
NEVIL JOHN – Respondent
RP NO. 34 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.29085 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV SRI.JUSTINE JACOB
For the Respondents: ADV.DILEEP VARGHESE

Multi-storied buildings are subject to specific water connection requirements; the court determined the respondents' building does not fall into this category.

Headnote:The review petitioners contended that a multi-storied building cannot be granted a casual water connection without a 150 mm diameter pipeline per Section 38A of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. The court found the respondents' building did not qualify as a multi-storied building as previously determined in W.P.

(C) No.29085/2025. Hence, the review petition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. requirement for water connection for multi-storied buildings (Para 2)
2. court's conclusion on reviewed order (Para 3 , 4)

O R D E R

The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 17.12.2025 wherein a direction was issued to the competent amongst the review petitioners to provide petitioner’s building with a casual water connection, on production of a copy of this order.

2 The main contention raised in the review petition is that the petitioner’s building is a multi storied building not entitled to be granted a domestic water connection/casual connection. The review petitioners contend that, under Section 38A of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act , 1986, a water connection to a multi-storied building can be granted only through a 150 mm diameter pipeline. Since no such pipeline runs in front of the petitioners’ building, a CSME line must be laid at the petitioners’ expense, from which the Water Authority can grant water connection.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners as well as the learned counsel for respondents in this review petition.

4. By a judgment in the W.P.(C) No.29085/2025 delivered today, I have already considered the question as to whether the respondents’ building falls within the category of a multi-storied building and I have concluded in the negative.

In view of the above conclusion, there is no merit in this review petition and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top