IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13774 of 2011(V) --------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.K. GOPI, S/O. KUNJEN, AGED 54 YEARS, VARUKUNNEL HOUSE, VELIYANADU KARA, EDAKKATTUVAYAL VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, VELIYANADU P.O., PIN-682 319, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTORITY, PIRAVOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686664. 3. V.K. MOHANAN, S/O. KUNJEN, AGED 44 YEARS, VARUKUNNEL HOUSE, KAKKAD KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686664. R1 & R2 BY SRI. M. DINESH, SC, KWA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.13774/2011 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 – COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S No.447/2007 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P2 – COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S. No.54/2008 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P3 – COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-01-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE AMG P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 13774 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are brothers. There is a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent with regard to the electricity connection and water connection given to the 3rd respondent, passing through the property of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent filed a civil suit as OS No.447/2007 against the petitioner before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha for an injunction restraining the petitioners from removing the water connection and and electric connection, which are passing through the property of the petitioner. The suit was decreed in part as per Ext.P1. It is stated that the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha as A.S. No.54/2008. The said appeal was dismissed on 04-11-2010. Thereafter the Electricity Board changed the electricity connection from the petitioner's property. Now, it has been drawn along the road situated on the eastern side of the 3rd respondent's property. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P3 application dated 28-01-2011 to change the W.P (c) No.13774/2011 -2- water connection as well, from the property of the petitioner. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the application preferred by the petitioner revealed involvement of the 3rd respondent and hence could not be acted upon. Pursuant to the notice issued, the 3rd respondent has entered appearance through counsel and submits that Ext.P1 Decree still stands, the operative portion in which reads as follows: “Defendants or anybody claiming under him is restrained from removing the water supply lines and electricity connection passing through plaint B schedule property without due process of law. In the above circumstances, unless and until the said decree is got varied or set aside, no relief can be sought for or obtained by the petitioner, submits the learned counsel. 3. After hearing both sides, this Courts finds that the injunction ordered against the petitioner in removing the water supply line through the property of the petitioner is otherwise an under due process of law. In other words the said verdict is no bar in filing a proper application before the 2nd respondent in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, to remove the water supply line from the petitioner's property, to be drawn W.P (c) No.13774/2011 -3- through a different route, i.e., along the road lying on the eastern side of the 3rd respondent's property. In the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders fixing the estimate amount to change the water supply line from the petitioner's property within a period of 3 weeks; on which event the same shall be satisfied by the petitioner. On satisfying the relevant requirements, the water supply lines passing through the property of the petitioner shall be removed and drawn through the alternate route to effect supply to the 3rd respondent forthwith. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge