BIJOYKUMAR P.R. and others v. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PIRAVOM; EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PIRAVOM; KERALA WATER AUTHORITY; STATE OF KERALA; AMBALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH; DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/17TH KARTHIKA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4905 of 2009 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1.BIJOYKUMAR P.R., AGED 39 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,, KULAYETTIKKARA P.O., 682 315, ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. K.K.SATHYAN PILLAI, VELUTHAMKUNNEL HOUSE,, KULAYETTIKKARA P.O., 682 315, ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. V.K.VALSALA, VELUTHAMKUNNEL HOUSE,, KULAYETTIKKARA P.O.,, KANJIRAMATTAM (VIA) 682 315, ERNAKULAM DIST. 4. P.V.KOCHUNARAYANAN, VELUTHAMKUNNEL HOUSE,, KULAYETTIKKARA P.O., 682 315, ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PIRAVOM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PIRAVOM. 3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,, JALA BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. ## WP(C).No. 4905 of 2009 (H) -2- 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. AMBALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, AMBALLOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM R,R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## WP(C).No. 4905 of 2009 (H) ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THER CONSUMER CARD NO. 938/ABLR ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONERs EXT.P2: TRUE COP OF THE CONSUMER CARD NO. 970/ABLR ISSUED by the IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONERs EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIOENRS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-09-2008 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ERNAKULAM EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-10-2008 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDERESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-01-2009 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIOENRS 1 & 3 FORWARDING THE ORDERS EXT. P5 AND P6 EXT.P6 A: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL A/D CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE ORDERS BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-1-2009 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2-22009 OF 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JDUGE ## **B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.** ------------------------------------------------- ## **W.P. ( C) No. 4905 of 2009** ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are residents of Amballur Grama Panchayath. They are consumers of water supply provided by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Eventhough water connection was provided to the petitioners, the petitioners are not getting drinking water, as there is no water supply practically to the area of the petitioners, which made the life of the petitioners miserable. 2. The water in the nearby Panchayath well is also not available during the summer season. Therefore, the petitioners along with others submitted a representation on 12-4-2017 before the District Collector requesting him to take measures for providing potable water to them. Ext. P3 is the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioners filed complaint before the Consumer Disputes -2- ## W.P. ( C) No. 4905 of 2009 Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. As per Exts. P4 and P5 orders, the Consumer Disputes Redressal forum directed the first respondent to provide potable water to the petitioners. In spite of the said direction, the respondents did not provide drinking water to the petitioners. In the said circumstances, the respondents have approached this Court with this Writ Petition, inter alia, praying for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take measures immediately to provide potable water to the petitioners. 3. The 5[th] respondent, Panchayath, filed counter affidavit admitting that during the summer season, there will be scarcity of water in several areas within the Panchayath as well as in the nearby Panchayath. In the said circumstances, the 5[th] respondent and other Panchayaths decided to launch a new scheme for the supply of drinking water to the residents of the three Panchayaths without any interruption. The learned counsel -3- W.P. ( C) No. 4905 of 2009 for the 5[th] respondent has today informed this Court that the said scheme had been already commissioned. However, still there is shortage of water supply in the locality, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent. 4. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 4[th] respondent , Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated in the counter affidavit that during summer season, there is scarcity of water due to the high consumption of water by the people and this would cause interruption of water supply to the petitioners. It is further contended that the area of the petitioners is in the tail end of the pipeline and an elevated area of Amballur Panchayath. Due to the high demand of the water during summer season, the water supply was poor in several days due to power failure. It is further contended by the 4[th] respondent that as per the -4- W.P. ( C) No. 4905 of 2009 direction of the District Collector, Ernakulam, Kerala Water Authority installed a separate valve to initiate the supply of drinking water to the petitioners. Due to the installation of this valve, supply of water to majority of the consumers residing in the lower area was disturbed and hence they were not getting water due to the operation of the valve. Kerala Water Authority gave direction to the valve operator not to operate the valve just to solve the problem completely. As a result, the entire area is getting water. It is admitted that the petitioners are not getting water to the desired level as the water is being supplied only once in a week. ## 5. Heard. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are consumers of water supply. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners are not getting potable water regularly. The Division Bench of this Court in Vishala Kochi -5- ## W.P. ( C) No. 4905 of 2009 Kudivella Samrakshana Samithi v. State of Kerala [2006 (1) KLT 919 held thus: “We have no hesitation to hold that failure of the State to provide safe drinking water to the citizens in adequate quantities would amount to violation of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and would be a violation of human rights. Therefore, every Government, which has its priorities right, should give foremost importance to providing safe drinking water even at the cost of other development programmes. Nothing shall stand in its way whether it is lack of funds or other infrastructure” The Division Bench of this Court in Shajimon Joseph v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 368] followed the decision in Vishala Kochi (supra) and held that the right to have clean drinking water supplied in sufficient quantities forms part of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. -6- ## W.P. ( C) No. 4905 of 2009 7. In this case, the petitioners are not getting potable water eventhough the water supply system operated by the Kerala Water Authority is in existence in the area of the petitioners. The mere fact that the houses of the petitioners are situated at the tail end of the pipeline and an elevated area of Amballur Panchayath, cannot be said to be a reason justifying non-supply of sufficient potable water to the petitioners. Water is one of the primary needs of man. Water is in fact elixir of life. A welfare State committed to the cause of the common man is bound to provide drinking water to the public, which should be the foremost duty of any Government. When considering the priorities of the Government, supply of drinking water should be on the top of the list. However, it is quite shameful to note that even in a civilized developing country like India, the petitioners are not provided with sufficient drinking water on flimsy reasons, which cannot be justified. -7- ## W.P. ( C) No. 4905 of 2009 8. In view of the above reasons, I direct respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to supply sufficient drinking water to the petitioners through an efficient water supply system without fail. The 6[th] respondent is directed to ensure that the petitioners get genuine potable water in sufficient quantities even during summer seasons. I make it clear that the failure to comply with the above direction will be viewed seriously. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of . ## **B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** . ani/8/11/17