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) 11911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ALOYSIOUS CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 30765 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR, SRI.P.REJINARK, SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR, SMT.MEGHA S.
For the Respondents: SRI.P.M.JOHNY, SC, SRI.SREEJITH V.S. GP

The court allows a petitioner to challenge governmental orders post-service while barring coercive actions until an appropriate window has passed.

Headnote:The petitioner sought separate water connections for dwelling units in Kureethara Apartments, citing prior directives from this Court. The respondents indicated that orders had been issued, but the petitioner claimed non-receipt of the order. The court determined that the writ petition need not proceed but permitted the petitioner to contest any future orders issued, highlighting that coercive actions should not occur until after 30 days of the order's service. The petition was disposed of in favor of allowing potential challenge to future orders.

Table of Content
1. request for water connections (Para 1)
2. discussion of orders issued (Para 2)
3. court's decision on proceeding (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has sought for a direction to allot separate water connection to each dwelling unit having separate house numbers as XIII/96 C to H in the Kureethara Apartments in Kalamassery Municipality. Ext.P10 is the petition filed by the petitioner pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.A.No.1050/2023.

2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the said petition was considered, and according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, orders have already been issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been served with a copy of the order.

3. Since it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that orders pursuant to Ext.P10 have already been issued, I am of the view that this writ petition need not be proceeded against.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the orders passed pursuant to Ext.P10, provided a copy of the said order is served on the petitioner by the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to mention, coercive proceedings pursuant to the said order shall not be initiated without waiting for the 30 days of the service of the said order.

The writ petition is disposed of.

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