IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7181 of 2008(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THORAMMA CHERIAN, AGED 66, W/O.MICHAEL, VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, 28/1116, INDIRA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 20. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 16. 3. THE ASST.ENGINEER, WATER WORKS SECTION NO.2, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI - 16. BY ADV. SRI. M. DINESH, SC FOR KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7181 OF 2008 - E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of March 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the prayer sought for is to quash Exts. p1 and P3 and to restore water connection to the petitioner's consumer No. 28/662/D. 2. The main contention that is raised is that Ext. P1, the first communication disconnecting water supply to the petitioner, does not contain particulars in relation to the petitioner's consumer number. It is stated the the consumer number mentioned therein is wrong and that the damage mentioned is also in service main, which is the pipe maintained by the Water Authority itself. 3. On notice, the Standing Counsel for the Water Authority entered appearance and submits that Ext.P1 contains certain mistakes. It is stated that the consumer number of the petitioner is 28/662/D and not 28/622/D mentioned in Ext. P1. It is also stated that the damage was in the service pipe and not service main as W.P.(C) No. 7181 OF 2008 - 2 - wrongly mentioned in Ext. P1. In support of this submission, the learned counsel is referring to the inspection report dated 2.2.2008 submitted by the Assistant Engineer of the Water Authority. A reading of the report shows that the damage was in the service pipe passing through a drainage and that on account of the damage, the drainage water got into the service pipe and through the service pipe into the main pipe. 4. Having heard the counsel on either side, I must confess and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the statements mentioned in the inspection report now relied on by the standing counsel for the Water Authority. If contamination has occurred, irrespective of the factual mistakes in Ext. P1, I am not inclined to interfere with the action taken by the respondent which certainly is in public interest. 5. Irrespective of the controversy that is now prevailing between the parties, I am informed by the counsel for the Water Authority that the petitioner has made an application for re- connecting the water supply. It is also assured that on completion of the formalities, water supply will be restored to the petitioner as W.P.(C) No. 7181 OF 2008 - 3 - immediately as possible. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Water Authority shall restore the water supply to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 days of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-