IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.15019 of 2003 Between: M. Varalakshmi .. Petitioner AND The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent in person. The petitioner claims to be in possession of Flat No.12, Block No.32, II Phase, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, under the circumstances stated in the writ affidavit and the 1st respondent was stated to have disconnected the existing tap connection for supply of water to the said flat on 06-05-2003 on the application of the 2nd respondent without any notice to the petitioner against which the petitioner claims to have submitted representations to the 1st respondent on 13-05-2003, 09-06-2003 and 03-07-2003 claiming to be entitled to the supply of water by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989 and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner, who claims to have made a subsequent application for a new connection as the occupier, desired the disconnection dated 06-05-2003 to be declared illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction for restoration of the tap connection and to further direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03-07-2003 to grant a fresh connection in the name of the petitioner. The 1st respondent has not filed any counter, while the 2nd respondent in his detailed counter, while referring to the course of litigation between the petitioner and himself and the other members of his family and also the principles laid down by various precedents stated to be of relevance to such course of events, has stated, insofar as the subject matter of this writ petition is concerned, that the disconnection of water supply was in respect of a connection for the flat in the name of his father late Sri K. Mahadeva Sastry and the connection was not in the name of the petitioner. Sri K. Mahadeva Sastry is no more and the connection could not have continued in the name of the deceased. The disconnection of water supply by the 1st respondent was in accordance with the statute and the law and the consumption of water by the illegal occupants without the knowledge of the allottee was illegal. The person applying for a water connection should be the owner of the property and the water bills are being issued in the name of the father of the 2nd respondent. An illegal encroacher cannot declare herself as a legal occupier and under the statute and the regulations, the 1st respondent was right in refusing to restore the water connection, more so, when it was not a party to any of the legal proceedings between the private parties earlier. The petitioner has no right and the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent have no duty to provide water to illegal occupants and the 2nd respondent claimed to have applied for disconnection of water supply on 21-03-2003 to the Water Works Manager of Baghlingampally reiterating the representations to his superiors on 25-03-2003 and 31-03-2003. The 2nd respondent claimed that the petitioner filed objections against the legal opinion obtained by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent and a notice was addressed to her and sent to the flat and therefore, the 2nd respondent desired that the writ petition be dismissed with exemplary costs for suppression of material facts, fabrication and forging of documents and perjury etc. Extensive arguments have been advanced by Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in person about the sequence of events relating to the conflicting claims of the parties over the flat in question on which no expression of opinion is required or being made in the adjudication herein as being outside the scope of the present writ petition. The 2nd respondent succeeded in W.A.No.1347 of 1998 dated 21-02-2002 against the A.P. Housing Board in having a direction to the Board to have the flat in question in the name of the 2nd respondent, while the Division Bench observed that it is for the 2nd respondent to take appropriate legal steps to evict any illegal occupant of the flat and that liberty was given and therefore, insofar as the possession of the flat is concerned, it is for the 2nd respondent to pursue the liberty given to him by their Lordships of the Division Bench. Insofar as the electric supply to the premises is concerned, the same had been the subject of W.P.No.6842 of 2003 decided on 02-07-2003 whereby a learned Judge of this Court directed the officials of the 1st respondent therein to restore the power supply to the flat in question upon an undertaking to be given by the present petitioner herein to the effect of acknowledging the responsibility for payment of all dues and future consumption charges and the learned Judge further directed that till the disposal of the suit filed for specific performance between the parties, the interim direction granted earlier in WPMP.No.8908 of 2003 dated 06-05-2003 shall be in force. In Writ Appeal No.1900 of 2003, a Division Bench decided on 10-11-2003 that as it was brought to their notice that the suit for specific performance was dismissed, since then the later portion of the order of the learned Single Judge became unnecessary. The Division Bench also observed insofar as the restoration of the power is concerned, it shall not confer any additional right, title or interest in the suit property upon the writ petitioner and the order is confined only to the extent of restoration of power supply, while the disputes, if any, with regard to the property itself are required to be settled elsewhere. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench clarified that the observations made in the order by the learned single Judge, if any, shall in no manner adversely affect the right, title and interest, if any, held by the appellants before their Lordships in the property in question. It is suffice to observe for the purpose of this writ petition that the observations of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1900 of 2003 shall illuminate the manner in which this writ petition has also to be adjudicated, taking the precaution of not making any observations, which may prejudicially affect the right, title and interest being claimed by any parties over the property in question. Without expressing any opinion, therefore, on the rights claimed by the parties over the flat in question, the contentions of the 2nd respondent about his right to apply for disconnection appears to be sound and legal as the consumer of water supply from the 1st respondent was admittedly named to be the father of the 2nd respondent, who was the allottee of the flat from the A.P. Housing Board. That the original allottee/consumer is no more is not in dispute and the relationship of the 2nd respondent to the deceased K. Mahadeva Sastry is also not in dispute and the right of the 2nd respondent to apply for disconnection of supply of water, therefore, may not be seriously open to question. The disconnection effected in consequence on the application of the 2nd respondent was claimed by the 2nd respondent to be with notice to the petitioner, while the petitioner denied having any such notice or an opportunity of defending herself in the matter of water supply. Thus, the necessity of going into the truth or otherwise of the conflicting claims of both parties ceases to exist in view of the fait accompli presented to the court even before filing of the writ petition with the water connection having been disconnected and the petitioner, not having been successful in the suit for specific performance, probably ex facie cannot claim to be entitled to be given a connection for supply of water as the owner of the property and in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in favour of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to approach the 1st respondent with reference to the water connection to the said flat and the 2nd respondent claimed to have so applied after clearing all the arrears due to the 1st respondent. Be that as it may, insofar as the request of the petitioner for considering her representation dated 03-07-2003 is concerned, to grant fresh connection in her name in respect of the flat in question as per the provisions of the A.P. Act 15 of 1989, Section 23 of the statute gives scope for an occupier of any building to apply for supply of water for domestic consumption and use. The 2nd respondent brings to notice the provisions of Section 95 of the statute and Rule 35 of the statutory rules to contend that an occupier to be entitled for apply for such connection should be a legal occupier, while the petitioner is an illegal occupier. The learned counsel for the petitioner contests the said contention claiming no illegality to be attached to the occupation of the flat in question by the petitioner. While the term “occupier” has not been defined in the Act and the Rules as such, it is for the 1st respondent in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction to consider the merits or demerits and the sustainability or otherwise of the application made by the petitioner and not for this Court to express in advance an opinion so as to prejudice the rights of the parties. Therefore, while the 1st respondent has to go into the merits of the application made by the petitioner for connection of water supply under the statute, since the filing of the writ petition, an interim direction is in force since 24-07-2003 directing the official respondent to reconnect the tap connection subject to the petitioner paying the water consumption charges. The interim order was made further subject to the condition that the petitioner or persons living in the flat on her behalf shall continue to pay water consumption charges as demanded by the 1st respondent in default of which the water connection will be disconnected, by an order of the learned Judge dated 05-02-2004. Thus, the tap connection facility in question is being continued to the flat in question since 24-07-2003 up to date and it will be but in the interests of justice to direct such facility to continue till a decision on the application of the petitioner by the 1st respondent for which decision a reasonable time limit can be fixed. It is needless to state that it is open to the 2nd respondent to submit his objections if any concerning the consideration of the application of the petitioner by the 1st respondent in this regard, which will also be duly considered by the 1st respondent. The writ petition has to be disposed of accordingly with appropriate directions in this regard, while making it clear that no part of this order is an expression of opinion on the conflicting claims of the parties over the flat in question. In the result, the 1st respondent shall duly consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03-07-2003 to grant a fresh connection in the name of the petitioner as per the provisions of the A.P. Act 15 of 1989 and the Rules made thereunder and pass appropriate orders or take necessary action in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and it is open to the 2nd respondent to submit his objections, if any, for such consideration of the representation of the petitioner to the 1st respondent, which shall also be taken into consideration by the 1st respondent on merits in accordance with law before passing any orders or taking action on the representation of the petitioner. Till one week after the communication of the order passed by the 1st respondent on the representation of the petitioner, the interim direction dated 24- 07-2003 as modified on 05-02-2004 shall continue to be in force. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the above direction. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-11-2012 Ksn