IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 646 of 2010(A) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7804/2010 Dated 12/03/2010 ................ REVIEW PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI-682011. BY ADV. SRI. S. RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN. RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PETER T.X. @ SIJU, S/O.T.J.XAVIER, THENAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 31. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OLD THEVARA ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM – 682 016. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OLD THEVARA ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM – 682 016. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM – 682 016. R2 & R3 BY ADV. M.DINESH, SC, K.W.A R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. SANDISH RAJA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- R.P.No.646 OF 2010 in W.P.(C)No.7804 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 O R D E R This Review Petition is filed by respondents 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition seeking to vacate that part of the interim order, wherein this Court directed the Corporation to sanction the estimate for an amount of Rs.28,000/- for enabling the Water Authority to effect proper repairs of certain pipes. 2. The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner failing to get any response to the demands for replacing the broken pipes and other pipes that passes through Perandoor Canal. The Water Authority took the stand that they have already prepared and forwarded the estimate for Rs.28,000/- to the Corporation. Recording their stand, this Court directed the Corporation to sanction the estimate. 3. Two grounds have been raised in the Review Petition- one that the estimate was not received by the R.P.No.646/10 -2- Corporation and secondly that the Corporation is not liable to meet the expenses, as it is for the Water Authority to repair the pipes. 4. The Water Authority has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the estimate was properly submitted to the Corporation on 18.1.2010. The relevant page of the despatch register Exhibit R2(b) and a reminder letter, Exhibit R2(c) have been produced. 5. In that view of the matter, the first objection of the Corporation may not survive. With regard to the question whether the Water Authority or the Corporation is mainly liable to meet the expenses for repairing the pipes passing through the Corporation area, the learned counsel for the Water Authority submitted that as per the existing practice, it is for the Corporation to meet the expenses, which is denied by the learned Counsel for the Corporation. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit of the Water Authority that as per the existing Government Rules, local R.P.No.646/10 -3- bodies have to remit a fixed amount for each public hydrant. Also funds earmarked under KVP by Government are released through local bodies for different sectors including water supply and this fund is being utlised for replacement of damaged pipes in the net work for which the required estimate amounts are being deposited by local bodies to Kerala Water Authority. The subject work was not a repair work, but replacement of the existing pipe lines on either side of the bridge across Perandoor Canal. 6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the entire work has been executed by the Water Authority. Therefore, they are seeking reimbursement from the Corporation. In the light of the dispute that has arisen between the parties, the matter will have to be considered by a higher authority. Herein the stand taken by the Water Authority appears to be that there are Government directions in existence which compels the Corporation to meet the expenses. It is also submitted by the learned R.P.No.646/10 -4- counsel that if the Corporation refuses to pay the amount, then it may affect the future repair works within the area of the Cochin Corporation. Regarding this aspect, what is mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the statement of facts of the Review Petition is that the Water Authority is collecting cess from the consumers for supply of water. Amounts due from the Corporation for the water consumed by it is deducted from the grant payable by the Government to the Corporation and is paid directly to the Kerala Water Authority. 7. Evidently, the interim order was passed before the respective parties had filed their counter affidavits and therefore this Court had no occasion to consider these disputes on the merits, since the repairs had to be executed urgently. 8. In that view of the matter, since the Corporation disputes the liability , it is upto the Water Authority to take up the matter before the Government for issuing proper R.P.No.646/10 -5- direction to the Corporation in the matter. Therefore, the Review Petition is allowed, without prejudice to the right of the Water Authority to approach the Government in the matter. That part of the interim order directing the Corporation to meet the expenses is vacated and the Review Petition is allowed to that extent. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge