THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17340 of 2011 Date:13.10.2011 Between: S.R.Pandurang ..... Petitioner AND Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.Ravi Kumar For Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, Standing Counsel for HMWS The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in enhancing the capacity of water connection from ½” to ¾” to the petitioner’s premises bearing No.3-4-19, of Barkatpura, Hyderabad, under Customer Account Number (for short ‘CAN’) 054200700, in pursuance of Single Window File No.2009-4-2057, dated 22.04.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to provide ¾” water connection to his premises. The petitioner is the son of late Dr.Bhoomannah. During the life time of the petitioner’s father, the respondents have sanctioned ½” water connection vide CAN 054200700 in the name of the petitioner’s father. After his death, the petitioner’s brother-Dr.S.R.Ramnath applied for enhancement of capacity of water connection from ½” to ¾”, vide application No.432359, 22.04.2009, under the existing CAN. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that enhancement was sanctioned vide Single Window File No.2009-4-2057, dated 22.04.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said sanction, no action has been taken for enhancement of capacity of water connection from ½” to ¾” and that, therefore, the petitioner got a legal notice issued to the respondents on 29.09.2010 and as the same has not yielded any result, he has filed the present Writ Petition. Respondent No.3-the General Manager (E), O & M Division-V of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad, (for short ‘HMWSSB’) filed a counter- affidavit, wherein it is averred that in the final decree passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.2833 of 2006 in O.S.No.377 of 2003, dated 20.04.2007, the municipal water connection and drain connection existing in the premises in question fell to the share of the petitioner and the petitioner’s brother- Dr.S.R.Ramnath has to make alternative arrangements for the said purpose; that Dr.S.R.Ramnath has, therefore, applied for water connection of ¾” to his premises and that, accordingly, after obtaining technical feasibility report and collecting necessary charges, new connection was released in his favour vide No.2009-4-2057 with CAN 616262005. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that in addition to the existing water connection in the name of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner also obtained another connection under CAN 054218202 and has been receiving water supply from the said two connections. It is, therefore, averred that the petitioner is not entitled to enhancement of capacity of the existing water connection. Even according to the petitioner, he has not applied for either new water connection or enhancement of the capacity of the water connection. It is the petitioner’s brother-Dr.S.R.Ramnath who applied for new water connection of ¾” capacity. The respondents filed a copy of the final decree of the civil Court in the partition suit among the petitioner’s family, and also the customer ledgers which clinchingly establish that the petitioner is enjoying two water connections i.e., CAN 054200700 standing in the name of his father-Dr.Bhoomannah and CAN 054218202 which was released in his name. The third water connection was given in the name of Dr.S.R.Ramnath-the brother of the petitioner on 08.08.2009 in pursuance of the application filed by him, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner. The only ground on which the petitioner is claiming right for enhancement of capacity of water connection is that in the application of his brother, he has referred to the CAN standing in the name of his father, which fell to his share. Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the HMWSSB, representing the respondents, explained that whenever a new water supply connection is applied for, the applicant has to mention the Customer Account Number of the existing water connection and that, hence, CAN 054200700 standing in the name of the petitioner’s father, which fell to the petitioner’s share after his death, has been mentioned by the petitioner’s brother in his application. Obviously, taking advantage of reference to the said CAN in the application of the petitioner’s brother, the petitioner has come out with the plea that he is entitled to enhancement of capacity of the existing water connection. These facts thoroughly convinced this Court that there are absolutely no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in filing this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only). As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.20834 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th October 2011 DR