IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4512 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHAIKUTTY, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 61,KONGALATHU MUPPIRIAYIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERY MURI, TIRUVALLA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KUTTIYANY SRI.PAUL JOSE SMT.LENI SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. SRI.M.DINESH, SC FOR KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.4512 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is residing with his family in the property namely Kongalathu Muppiriayil House in Thukalassery Muri, Tiruvalla Village. The water authority has put up a pipeline in the petitioner’s property without consent and knowledge of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said pipeline started leaking in many places around the compound and even though repairs have been conducted that could not rectify the leakage so far. According to the petitioner he was approached the Assistant Executive Engineer namely the second respondent herein, by filing Ext.P2 representation to take appropriate actions to prevent water logging. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority on getting instructions submitted that the said pipeline was laid by one K.A.Cherian, Consumer No.TLE 750 in his name. The petitioner had given a complaint before the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer on 26/3/2009. After the receipt of the complaint filed by the petitioner Assistant Executive Engineer conducted a local inspection, and he found that it required W.P.(C)No.4512 of 2010 2 repair, and accordingly notice was issued to Mr.K.A.Cherian. Since the said consumer had not conduct any repair and as there is a loss of water due to the leakage, the pipeline has already been disconnected on 24/6/2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the pipeline is reconnected without conducting any repair it will cause water loss and it will spread in the area again. The petitioner's request is to dismantle the line itself or to put up the same at a higher level. True that by laying a pipe line, the persons like the petitioner cannot be put at a disadvantage. These are matters for the Assistant Executive Engineer to consider and if any new work or repair is to be effected it will be done only with notice to the petitioner. If the petitioner requires the pipeline to be removed from his property, it is up to him to file an application before the second respondent in the matter which will be considered in accordance with the rules. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj