THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13334 of 2008 Dated: 13.07.2011 Between: M.A. Sarwar …Petitioner And Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water & Sewage Board, Hyderabad & others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Ravinder Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13334 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 21.06.2008, of respondent No.4. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of premises bearing house No. 5-4-203/1, Boats Club, Secunderabad. According to him, the said premises is owned by two owners of whom he is the tenant . By the impugned notice, respondent No.4 has called upon Sri Mohd. Ghousuddin, who is obviously treated as the owner, to change the water connection from trunk main to service line within a week and that failing which the connection will be disconnected. It is the plea of the petitioner that since he is the tenant, he is affected by the said notice. It is also his case that several other persons in the locality have connected the water pipelines from the trunk main and that without issuing notices to them and taking action, the respondents have committed discrimination in issuing the impugned notice in respect of his premises alone. In the counter affidavit filed by the General Manager (Engg.) of respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this Writ Petition because, even according to him, he is only a tenant and not either the owner of the building or the consumer. The respondents have relied upon the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Rule 2(1)(c) of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply Rules, 1990 and pleaded that to be a consumer, an applicant should secure a pipe water supply service connection under the rules. Admittedly, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he applied for and secured the pipe water supply service connection. Therefore, merely because he is in occupation of the premises as tenant, he will not get locus standi to question the impugned notice. Even on merits, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned notice. Admittedly, the extant provisions, governing the supply of water, do not authorise the consumer to connect water pipeline through the trunk main and the rules provide for connection through service line alone. The petitioner has not disputed that the connection is made through the trunk main, which is in gross violation of the rule position. The petitioner, who violated the statutory provision, is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order of status quo granted on 25.06.2008 is vacated and WPMP.No.17212 of 2008 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.07.2011 ES