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
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/-