IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 5833 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------- SAJI.A.S. @ SAJI SUBRAHMANIAN, W/O. ROSHKUMAR.M.K., AGED 35 YEARS, MEPPARAMBU HOUSE, PALLIPARAMBU, VALAPPU BEACH, PUTHUVYPU POST KOCHI-682508. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, W.S. SUB DIVISION, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM-682506. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, W.S.SECTION NO.III, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, NARAKKAL-682507. 4. P.N.KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, PUNCHEPPADI HOUSE, VALAPPU BEACH, PUTHUVYPU POST, KOCHI-682508. R4 BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.5833/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SITE SKETCHE AND APPLICATION PREFFERED BY THE PETITIONER FOR DRINKING WATER CONNECTION. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 3.1.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 5833 of 2011 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner owns 4 cents of land wherein a residential building of door No.VIII/211C of Elankunnapuzha Grama Panchayat is situated. By Ext.P1 application to the first respondent, petitioner sought a domestic water connection. Although all procedural formalities have been complied with, on the allegation that the fourth respondent raised objection against laying pipelines to the petitioner's house through a pathway leading to her residential building, water connection was not given. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint to the second respondent. That also did not evoke any response. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 2. The stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 is that the pipelines are to be laid through a pathway to the petitioner's house and that the fourth respondent objected to laying of W.P.(C) No.5833/11 : 2 : pipelines. 3. The fourth respondent has not so far filed any counter affidavit in this case. 4. As already seen, according to the petitioner, pipelines are to be laid through a pathway over which she also has rights and that the pathway leads to her house. It is also her case that on an earlier occasion, when electricity lines were attempted to be drawn, the fourth respondent had raised objections which were got removed by obtaining an order from the Additional District Magistrate exercising powers under the Indian Telegraph Act. 5. If as stated by the petitioner, pipeline is to be laid only through the pathway leading to her house, I do not see any substance in the objection raised by the fourth respondent who has not chosen even to file a counter affidavit. Therefore, I direct that respondents 1 to 3 will take steps for providing water connection to the petitioner's residential house based on Ext.P1 application. This shall be W.P.(C) No.5833/11 : 3 : done as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/18/08 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge