IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36593 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. KANNOLI PATHU @ FATHIMA HAJJUMMA W/O. IBRAHIM, 'MINARA' V.O.ROAD, VATAKARA ,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL ABI K.K., PARAMBATH HOUSE V.O.ROAD, VATAKARA ,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. VATAKARA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY POST VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DT. 2. THE SECRETARY VATAKARA MUNICIPALITY POST VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DT. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER SUPPLY PROJECT DIVISION KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.M.DINESH, SC FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.36593/09 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 14.12.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.37037/09 DT 9.11.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND HER PARTNER DT 29.1.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 3.10.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 8.10.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY DT 7.9.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DT 7.10.2009. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 15.10.2009 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR WATER CONNECTION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT 24.12.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36593 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is two fold. One is regarding the alleged refusal of the 1st respondent to accept an application for licence and the second is regarding the alleged refusal of the 3rd respondent to give water connection. 2. First petitioner along with a partner constructed a building in their property in RS 136/14A of Vadakara Village. According to the first petitioner, in relation to a ramp constructed, notice was issued by the Municipality requiring its removal, which led the first petitioner to file a suit. The suit was dismissed and the appeal filed is pending. 3. Meantime, Municipality refused to number the building and that led the first petitioner to file WP(C) No.37037/09. Pursuant to the orders passed in that writ petition, number was assigned to the building on a provisional basis. At a later stage, writ petition itself was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that the number will be maintained as provisional subject to the outcome of the litigation between the parties. WPC 36593/09 :2 : 4. The matter remains as such and in the meanwhile, first petitioner leased out the premises to the second petitioner for conducting a cool bar. It is stated that the second petitioner applied for licence in respect of the premises and in view of the pending civil litigation between the Municipality and the first petitioner, second respondent is refusing even to accept the licence application. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent is refusing to give water connection to the premises. 5. In so far as the controversy between the first petitioner and the Municipality is concerned, the position as obtaining today has to continue till the final disposal of the civil litigations and that is the direction of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. If that be so, subject to the outcome of the civil litigation between the parties, if licence is otherwise liable to be granted to the premises in question, Municipality is duty bound to grant the same. Therefore there is no justification for the alleged refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent in accepting the licence application of the 2nd petitioner. 6. In view of the above, it is directed that it will be open WPC 36593/09 :3 : to the 2nd petitioner to submit his application to the 2nd respondent, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall accept the application, consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. 7. In so far as the controversy regarding the refusal of the 3rd respondent to give water connection is concerned, counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the connection already given was for construction purposes and that now water supply is sought to be used for commercial purposes, only a fresh connection can be granted and that too for commercial purpose. If that the regulation of the 3rd respondent, 2nd petitioner is bound to comply with such requirements. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner has filed Ext.P9 application for water connection. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P9 application submitted by the first petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp