IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9276 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SUNDARESAN, S/O.RAMAN MESRI MANOJ MANDIRAM, XV /477,PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY VELLAYAMBLAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM. 4. SRI.SATHYASEELAN, KALLINGAL PADINJATTATHIL, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR 75 KILIKOLLUR KOLLAM. 5. SUKUMARY, KALLINGAL PADINJATTATHIL, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR 75 KILIKOLLUR KOLLAM. 6. VIMALA, KALLINGAL PADINJATTATHIL, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR 75 KILIKOLLUR KOLLAM. SRI.M.DINESH, SC,KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9276 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P13 and 14 to the extent it orders installation of water tap in front of the petitioner's property, which according to the petitioner obstructs the free ingress and egress to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner refers to Ext.P7, the photograph of the area where the tap in question has been installed. Prima facie, it would appear that the location of the tap is close to the petitioner's own boundary wall and if that be so, on the material available, I am not in a position to accept the contention that it obstructs ingress and egress of the petitioner. That apart, I also notice from Exts.P13 and P14, that according to the Water Authority, the tap in question has been installed at the place as suggested by the Councillor for the Corporation. Apart from impleading the alleged beneficiaries of the water tap in question, the petitioner has not impleaded the Councillor or the Corporation. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to entertain this writ petition. WPC 9276/09 :2 : 3. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has a case that on materials, he can establish that there has been obstruction to his ingress and egress, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and establish his rights, in which event, the same shall be decided untramelled by the findings in this judgment. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp