High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-16Disposed of directing the first respondent to p...

Anoob M.H. v. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.35061 OF 2019(G)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2020-09-16
Court Decision / Holding: To provide water connection to the petitioner’s building within three months, if the application is otherwise in order.
Final Disposition: Disposed of directing the first respondent to provide water connection within three months, if application is otherwise in order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anoob M.H., aged 31 years, S/O Hassan M.A., MattoKal House, Thaikkattukara, Aluva, Ernakulam-683106

Respondents

Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Section Number 1, Kaloor, Ernakulam-682017
Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary, Ernakulam District-682027

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Sayed Murthala Thangal
• Sri S.S. Srinath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. Benjamin Paul
• Sri T.K. Ajithkumar (Valath)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Anoob M.H., is the owner of a four-storey residential building in Cheranellur, Ernakulam. In September 2005 he applied for a building permit; Ext.P1 was granted and, subsequently, Ext.P2 permitted construction of a fourth floor. Ext.P3 is an ownership certificate issued (dated 21.1.2019) and Ext.P4 an occupancy certificate. He submitted an application for a water connection on 31.12.2018 (Ext.P5). The first respondent denied the request, stating that water availability in Cheranellur is scarce and a connection cannot be given at present. The petitioner contends that the Kerala Water Authority has granted connections to other residential houses and apartments in the area, and that he is being singled out for discriminatory treatment. The respondents contend Cheranellur is a tail-end area of the distribution network and that supplying a water connection to a four-storey, 28-unit building would adversely affect supply to neighbouring areas. They point to ongoing AMRUT works, including a 15 lakh litre Over Head Service Reservoir at Vadathode and a proposed 450 mm DI pumping main from Thammanam to the OHSR, expected to be completed within three years. The petition cites Vishala Kochi Kudivella Samrakshana Samithi (2006) 1 KLT 919 and Shajimon Joseph (2007) 1 KLT 368 to support a right to water under Article 21 and equality under Article 14, and Hilite Builders (P) Ltd. (2015) 1 KLT 568 to urge non-discrimination between flats and other residential units. The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to provide a water connection to the petitioner’s building within three months, if the application is otherwise in order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 21 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 14 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Water as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to life)
Equality and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends denial of water connection on account of area scarcity is discriminatory and violates his fundamental rights; he has complied with all requirements and possesses occupancy certificate; he asserts that other residential units and flats in the locality have been granted connections; there is ongoing AMRUT project improving water supply; he argues that denial cannot be justified by mere future improvements and seeks immediate relief directing KWA to grant water connection if the application is in order.

Contentions of Respondents

The KWA and Panchayat contend Cheranellur is a water-scarce tail-end area; granting a connection to a four-storey, 28-unit building would adversely affect supply to neighboring areas; the project AMRUT and proposed pumping main will, within three years, enhance supply; until then, connections will be refused to protect public supply; no discrimination is intended and resources are limited.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vishala Kochi Kudivella Samrakshana Samithi v. State of Kerala	2006 (1) KLT 919	Positive	The judgment held that supply of safe drinking water to citizens in adequate quantities is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Shajimon Joseph and others v. State of Kerala and others	2007 (1) KLT 368	Positive	Held that citizens have the right to get clean drinking water and should be given utmost priority to resolve drinking water problems.
M/s.Hilite Builders (P) Ltd. and others v. State of Kerala and others	2015 (1) KLT 568	Positive	Held that water supply to flats, villas, and independent bungalows should be treated alike and any discrimination would violate Article 14.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anoob M.H. v. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 25TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.35061 OF 2019(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANOOB M.H.,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN M.A.,MATTAKAL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 106.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL SRI.S.S.SRINATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SECTION NUMBER 1, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017.** - **2 CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 027.** **R1 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C)No.35061/2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 16[th] day of September, 2020 The petitioner is the owner of a four storied residential building in Cheranellur Village, Ernakulam District. The petitioner states that, in September, 2005, he submitted an application for building permit and Panchayat granted Ext.P1 permit. The building initially had three floors. Subsequently, the Panchayat granted Ext.P2 building permit and accorded permission to make construction of the fourth floor. 2. Ext.P3 ownership certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Secretary to Grama Panchayat. Ext.P4 occupancy certificate was also issued. The petitioner made an application before the first respondent for water connection on 31.12.2018, as per Ext.P5. However, the first respondent informed the petitioner that water availability in the area is less and hence connection cannot be given at WP(C)No.35061/2019 3 present. The petitioner produced Ext.P7 letter of the President of Cheranellur Grama Panchayat requiring the respondent to grant water connection to the petitioner. But the same was of no avail. By Ext.P8 dated 28.11.2019, the first respondent again informed the petitioner that his application cannot be favourably considered. 3. The petitioner states that the first respondentKerala Water Authority has granted connection to every residential houses and buildings of the locality. Only the petitioner is being discriminated in the matter. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit. The first respondent stated that Cheranellur Panchayat is an area affected by severe water scarcity as it is the tail end of the distribution network fed from the Aluva treatment plant. Applications for water connection to ordinary residential buildings are allowed as their water consumption will be less. Water connection to the petitioner is denied since his residential building is four storied, consisting of 28 units. WP(C)No.35061/2019 4 Supply of water connection to the said flats would adversely affect the water supply to the neighbouring area. 5. The respondent pointed out that a new Over Head Service Water Reservoir having 15 lakhs litre capacity is being constructed under the AMRUT Project at Vadathode. The commissioning of the said Project will cater the drinking water requirements of the people in the locality. Further more a proposal to provide a dedicated pumping main of 450 mm DI pipe from Thammanam pump house to the ongoing 15 lakh litre capacity OHSR at Vadathode has received administrative sanction under Re-build Kerala funding. The project is expected to be completed within three years. The respondents will be able to grant water connection to the petitioner thereafter. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 7. By Exts.P6 and P8 orders, water connection has WP(C)No.35061/2019 5 been denied to the petitioner on the ground that there is water scarcity in the area. The defence of the first respondent is that the petitioner's building being a multi storied one having a large number of residential units, supply cannot be made to the said building, for the reason that such supply will adversely affect the water supply to other residential buildings in the area. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in **Vishala Kochi Kudivella Samrakshana Samithi v. State of Kerala** [2006 (1) KLT 919] has held that supply of safe drinking water to citizens in adequate quantities is a fundamental right and failure to provide drinking water to citizens, would amount to violation of right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court again held in **Shajimon Joseph and others v. State of Kerala and others** [2007 (1) KLT 368] held that citizens have the right to get clean drinking water and should give utmost priority to resolve the drinking water problem faced by the WP(C)No.35061/2019 6 ## people. 9. In **M/s.Hilite Builders (P) Ltd. and others v. State of Kerala and others** [2015 (1) KLT 568] this Court held that grant of water supply to flats as well as to villas and independent bungalows are to be treated alike by the State and the Authorities and any discrimination between them in the matter of connection for water supply would violate the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court also held that applicants cannot be asked to wait indefinitely on the ground that water will be available in plenty after implementation of proposed projects. 10. The judgment in **M/s.Hilite Builders (P) Ltd.** squarely applies to the facts of the case. In view of the said judgment, the first respondent cannot be permitted to make any discrimination between ordinary residential units and apartment complex in the matter of water supply. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing WP(C)No.35061/2019 7 the first respondent to provide water connection to the building of the petitioner within three months, if application is otherwise in order. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ncd WP(C)No.35061/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 7.11.2015.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 20.05.2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 21.1.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED AFTER INSPECTION BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 24.12.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR WATER CONNECTION DATED 31.12.2018.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.02.2019.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.3.2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2019.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL RAISED BY FIRST RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DATED 21.01.2019**