IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29975 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. M.C.SHANMUGHAN, S/O.CHATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, MANIYAMTHURUTHIL, NEDUNGAD, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., VYPEEN. 2. BHANUMATHY, W/O.BALAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KOMATH KIZHAKKENIKARTHIL HOUSE, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., VYPEEN 682509. 3. ASOKAN, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, AGED 42 YEARS, THEKKINEZHATH HOUSE, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., VYPEEN. BY ADVS. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM 683016. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, W.S.SUB DIVISION, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM 683513. 4. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, HOUSE, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., VYPEEN 682509. R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA R4 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010 ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.34898/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 29975 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS. --------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE SITE SKETCHES AND CHALLANS OF ALL OF THESE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BUY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.02.2010. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.R4(A). COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 23.02.2008. EXT.R4(B). COPY OF THE SITE SKETCH. EXT.R4 ©. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 29975 & 34898 OF 2010 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners in WP(C) No.29975/10 applied for water connection to their premises. However, the Water Authority did not provide connection on account of the objection raised by the 4th respondent. It is complaining of delay in getting water connection, WP(C) No.29975/10 is filed. 4th respondent in the above writ petition and his brother have filed WP(C) No.34898/10. They are also complaining of delay on the part of the Water Authority in giving them connection pursuant to applications made by them. 2. The reason stated by the Water Authority to justify the delay in giving connection to the petitioners in WP(C) No.29975/10 is that the 4th respondent therein and his brother, who have filed WP(C) No.34898/10, have objected to drawing the pipeline through the pathway leading to the house of the petitioner in WP(C) No.29975/10. According to the 4th respondent and his brother, the water connection to their premises is delayed on account of the objection raised by the petitioner in WP(C) No. WPC No. 29975 & 34898/10 :2 : 29975/10 against the drawing of pipeline through the aforesaid pathway itself. According to them, regarding the title to the portion of the land through which the pathway is passed, there are disputes which are pending before the Civil Court. 3. Irrespective of the aforesaid submissions made by the parties, when the case came up today, counsel appearing for the petitioners in both cases have categorically submitted before this Court, that the petitioners have no objection in drawing pipeline through the pathway through the premises of the petitioner in both the writ petitions. 4. Therefore, recording the aforesaid submission to the effect that both sides have no objection in drawing pipeline through the pathway in order to provide water connection to their respective houses, these writ petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the Water Authority to take further action based on the applications made by the respective petitioners for water connection to their respective premises. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp