IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6723 of 2008 Between: 1 K.A.Mujeeb Ansar S/o.K.A.Rasheed Ansari R/o.12-2-786/2, Midway Colony, Rethi bowli, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 2 Atif Ali S/o.Nasir Ali R/o.12-2-786/5, Midway Colony, Rethi bowli, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 3 Mohd. Ali S/o.Mohd. Mahboob R/o.12-2-786/6, Midway Colony, Rethi bowli, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director, The H.M.W.S. & S. Board, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager (Engg) General, Single Window Cell, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3 The Secretary, Siddartha Ashwini Apartments, 12-2-785/1, Midway Colony, Hyderabad - 500 028. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particular in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation dt. 17.3.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 and Art.300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to lay the new pipeline to be granted to the 3rd respondent/flat owners from the trunk/main pipeline or in the alternative enhance the connection by doubling the size of existing connection and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MOHD.MAZHAR ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MS.M.VENKATESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (for short ‘the Board’) in not considering their representation dt. 17.3.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to lay a new pipeline to be granted to the 3rd respondent/flat owners from the trunk/main pipeline or in the alternative to enhance the connection by doubling the size of existing connection. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Hyderabad Metropolitan Water supply and Sewerage Board and the 3rd respondent and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioners claim to be the residents of Midway Colony situated at Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. At the request made by the residents of the colony, the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board laid the water pipeline and sewerage line. After a few years, the 3rd respondent apartment came to be constructed in the colony. Even though they have to lay a separate sewerage pipeline for the apartment, the residents of the apartment illegally got their connection included in the colony sewerage pipeline thereby causing over load on the existing pipeline, which is creating problems for the people of the colony. While the matters stood thus, since the residents of the 3rd respondent apartment did not pay the huge arrears that fell towards the payment of water consumption charges for having the connection from the trunk/main line, the water supply connection to the apartment was disconnected. But however, on the representations made by the residents of the apartment, the 1st respondent Board again sanctioned a 25mm water supply connection and sewerage connection to the premises through proceedings dated 6.9.2007 on certain conditions. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the existing water pipeline to their colony is not sufficient and they are making several representations to the authorities to increase the supply of water to their colony, instead of redressing their grievances, the authorities are multiplying the same by further giving water connections to the 3rd respondent flat from their pipeline, thereby affecting the water supply to their colony that too when the 3rd respondent has failed to comply with the conditions laid down in proceedings dated 6.9.2007. In reply to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respondent Board has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that initially the 3rd respondent has applied to a 40 mm dia water supply connection to the proposed building. In the field report it was recommended for 40 mm dia water supply connection by proposing a 150 mm dia water supply line for a length of 75 Rmts to a cost of Rs.1.50 lakhs and accordingly the sanction was given as per which the 3rd respondent has to pay an amount of Rs.8,05,000/- towards the connection charges. While so, on 20.8.2007 the residents of the 3rd respondent flat represented that some of the flat owners are unwilling to cooperate and contribute the amount of their share and due to that the individual contribution has gone up and, therefore, requested to reduce the size of connection from 40 mm dia to 25mm dia in order to minimize the connection charges. Accordingly, the Managing Director has consented to reduce the size of the connection and advised the 3rd respondent apartment welfare association to take up the rain water harvesting structure to exempt the rainwater harvesting charges and a revised order of connection charges was issued. It is also stated that out of an amount of Rs.5,00,350/-, the 3rd respondent has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and as and when the balance amount would be paid, the water supply would be released. That apart, giving 25 mm dia connection to the apartment from the existing 4” line will not reduce the water supply to the petitioner colony and no prejudice would be caused to the other residents of the colony. As per the field personnel suggestions and recommendations for sanctioning 25 mm dia connection from the existing line only, the sanction is granted. It is further stated that there were no arrears payable by the 3rd respondent and that no connection from the main trunk was ever given to them as contended by the petitioners. Placing reliance on an approval report dated 6.9.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the said report, 25 half inch connections are already provided and if they want enhanced water supply connections, they have to enhance the size of the connection and without doing so, the new connections cannot be given from the existing pipeline. Therefore, the impugned action of the Board in giving connection to the 3rd respondent flats is illegal as the same is being done without enhancing the size of the connection as per the approval report dated 6.9.2007. Admittedly, the disputed questions of fact as to whether the existing pipeline would serve the purpose of the colony as well as the interest of the 3rd respondent apartment etc., have to be gone into by the technical team of the respondent Board after thorough examination of the existing system of line. The new connections from the existing pipeline can be given only after getting the feasibility report submitted by the officers of the Board after necessary inspection. Initially in the year 2007 the approval was given for giving new connection to the 3rd respondent flats but since the residents could not pay the amounts stipulated, there happened some delay and even as on today, it is stated by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board that the amounts are not completely paid by the residents of the 3rd respondent flat and as soon as they pay the balance amount, the water connection would be given. In view of the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners that giving new connections from the existing pipeline would decrease the water flow to their locality and in that regard they made a representation to the authorities and the same is still pending, it is appropriate to direct the 1st respondent Managing Director to examine the feasibility of supply of water to the residents of the 3rd respondent flats without affecting the entitlement of the petitioners for getting the water after getting a fresh technical report from its officials as per the representation made by the petitioners and take necessary action and intimate the same to them. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.27.2.2009 msv.