IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10277 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SALWIN PIOUS, S/O.LATE C.J.JOHNSON, PEACE VILLA, KOMBARA JUNCTION, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SMT.ROSAMMA MATHEW SRI.ARUN.M.KURUVILLA SRI.R.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.PRATHEUSH.M.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KARUVELIPPADY, COCHIN-5. 3. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, COCHIN-11, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ZONAL OFFICE, FORT COCHIN-682 001. 5. MR.T.K.ASHRAF, CORPORATION COUNCELLOR WARD NO.5, GUJARATHI ROAD, NEAR MAHAJANAVADI, MATTANCHERRY COCHIN-2, HAVING OFFICE ADDRESS CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION BUILDING, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. BY ADV.SHRI M.DINESH -STANDING COUNSEL -KWA. S.RAMESH BABU – STANDING COUNSEL – COCHIN CORPORATION ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR FOR R5 SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10277 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide drinking water connection to the petitioner's residence without any further delay. He is residing in his family house bearing Cochin Corporation Door No.V/1136 in Kombara Junction, Mattancherry. The petitioner's case is that even though he is already having a water connection, the water available is contaminated and therefore he wants to have a renewal of the water connection. According to him, the Water Authority has recommended the same. Exhibit P2 is the intimation given by the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner has to get the renewal of the connection from C.No.5/221-D. Since it involves the cutting of the tarred road, the Corporation Councilor will have to give his consent for the various process to be undertaken to see that after the pipe is laid, the tarring work is performed so as to prevent any damage to the road. Exhibit P3 is the copy of the sketch for the said work. W.P.(C)No.10277/10 -2- 3. The petitioner's contention in the Writ Petition is that the 5th respondent is not giving his consent, for various extraneous reasons. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority submitted that if proper permission is granted for road cutting wprk, the Water Authority is prepared to undertake the work. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the proposed connection is from a very large pipe through which water is being supplied to various persons and he was anticipating complaints from members of the public and same is the reason for not giving the consent. Therefore, to avoid public criticism, he thought of not granting the consent and the consent is necessary for enabling re-tarring of the road in question after the pipes are laid. 6. The objection raised by the 5th respondent appears to be based on apprehension of complaints from the public. It is clear that the petitioner has already been granted permission by the Water Authority to do the work. Therefore the apprehension, W.P.(C)No.10277/10 -3- if any, need not deter the 5th respondent from giving his consent. At any rate, the petitioner is entitled to have a proper supply of water to his house, as it is now seen that he has to take recourse to the public tap for proper supply of water to his house, and the work sanctioned already has to be executed. 7. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 5th respondent to give road cutting permit to the petitioner. The 5th respondent will give the consent within a period of 05 days. The 4th respondent will issue the permit within a further period of one week for enabling the Water Authority to execute the work. After the conclusion of the work, re-tarring work will be done without any delay, at any rate, within a period of one month. For enabling the re-tarring work to be done, the estimate will be prepared by the Cochin Corporation and the petitioner will remit the amount accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn