IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 7092 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAIJA SALIL, W/O.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., ADVOCATE, NANMA, KANNACHANTHODU, P.O.PACHALAM, KOCHI - 12. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, KOCHI - 16. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, KOCHI - 16. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED *R3: CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, COCHIN REP BY ITS SECRETARY. * IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/03/2011 IN IA.NO.4832/2011 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA R3 BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.7092/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CONSUMER BILL ISSUED FOR THE WATER CONSUMED BY THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE BILL. P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSURES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND REFUSED TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 7092 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased 10 cents of land situated in RS No.28/12 of Kanayannur Taluk from one Sri.M.R.Joseph. There was an existing building with a water connection with consumer No.43/657/D. The building was demolished and a new one was constructed. Thereupon petitioner applied for water connection in her name. Water authority asked for further documents, which were also furnished. Inspite of it, water connection was not given in her name. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. The stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 is mainly that there is an existing water connection, and that, in such a premises, if a fresh connection is to be given, the existing water connection should be disconnected. 3. In my view, for technical reasons, a simple issue is being complicated. As already noticed, it is an admitted fact that there exists a water connection in the premises in question. The consumer is the petitioner's vendor. Now that the petitioner has purchased the premises and reconstructed the building and all WPC No. 7092/11 :2 : that she wants is a water connection in her name, petitioner can simply make an application for change of name of consumer, and on that basis, water connection can be changed into her name. There cannot be any objection to this course of action to either of the parties. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the petitioner will make an application to the 2nd respondent for changing the existing water connection into her name. If such an application is made, on compliance of the other procedural formalities in that behalf, the same will be allowed and orders will be passed without any delay. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp