IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9783 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SEBASTIAN N.J.,NELLIYANI HOUSE, VELLAPPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,PALA. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROAD,SUB DIVISION, PALA,ARUNAPURAM. MR.M.DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9783 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Nelliyani area in Ward No.21of Palai Municipality, and a beneficiary of Nelliyani-Pendanam Vayal road. It is stated that the residents of the area were being provided water by the Kerala Water Authority. In 2006, following the repair works of the aforesaid road undertaken by the 2nd respondent, the pipe lines were damaged and despite the fact that the road work has been completed, damages has not been rectified and water supply has not been restored. It is with this grievance, the writ petition has been filed praying to direct the respondents to restore water supply. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on instructions, submits that on account of the work undertaken by the 2nd respondent, pipes laid covering an area of 1.5 Kms. laid through the road were damaged. According to him, though the amount for rectification should have been remitted by the PWD or its contractor, despite demands being made, they have not so far remitted the WP(C) No.9783/2009 -2- amount. It is stated that this is the reason for delay in rectifying the damages and restoring water supply. 3. However, inviting my attention to Ext.P4, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even according to the 1st respondent, a portion of the damaged pipes were replaced by the Water Authority and water supply in that area has been restored. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the learned counsel is right in his submission. If that be the admitted factual position, there cannot be a different yardstick in so far as the area, where the petitioner is residing, is concerned. If according to the 1st respondent, the cost of rectification is to be remitted by the 2nd respondent, though it is open to the 1st respondent to realise the same, the delay in the remittance cannot be a reason for delaying rectification of the damaged pipes and restoration of the water supply. The 1st respondent should certainly adopt a common yardstick and if so, they are bound to restore the water supply without delay. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to rectify the damaged pipes and restore water supply in the Nelliyani area, Ward No.21 of Palai Municipality. However, it is clarified that if the 1st respondent is entitled to have WP(C) No.9783/2009 -3- the cost for rectifying the damaged pipes realised from the 2nd respondent, it is always open to the 1st respondent to do so. 5. The work shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg