K.P. Rajendran v. Kerala Water Authority Water Works Sub Division, Pallimukku, Kochi

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Manu
Judgment Date: 2024-03-27
Court Decision / Holding: Directs the first respondent to provide water connection to the petitioner within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment. If any obstruction is caused, the petitioner and the first respondent may approach the jurisdictional Station House Officer for police protection to ensure completion of the work; the SHO shall provide protection on receipt of the request and a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.P. Rajendran

Respondents

Kerala Water Authority Water Works Sub Division, Pallimukku, Kochi - 16, represented by the Executive Engineer
Ajithkumar s/o Late Padmanabhan Shetty, aged 50 years, Koovakkad House, Pachalam, Cochin - 16

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Biju Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• P.M. Johny
• K.I. Mayankutty
• P. Rahul

Case Synopsis & Summary

K.P. Rajendran, the petitioner, seeks judicial intervention to obtain a water connection for his premises from the Kerala Water Authority. He resides in a portion of his Tharavadu property, which was allocated to him by a decree in O.S. No. 510/1996/2012 (Second Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam), and there are disputes over the share amount in an appeal pending before this Court (R.F.A. No. 178/2013). The petitioner had previously obtained a directive in W.P. (C) No. 25828/2016 to provide water connection, and he claims to have paid the required fees. When construction work for laying the connection commenced, it was allegedly obstructed by the second respondent. The Water Authority’s communication (Ext.P4) indicated willingness to complete the work if adequate police protection was provided to prevent obstruction. The Court notes that the right to clean water is a fundamental right, citing Subhashkumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 420), and holds that denial of a water connection infringes that right. Relying on these facts, the Court directs the first respondent to provide water connection within two weeks, and if obstruction occurs, allows both petitioner and first respondent to seek police protection. The jurisdictional SHO is directed to ensure protection to complete the work. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Right to water is a part of the fundamental right to life (right to pollution-free water and air) as articulated in Subhashkumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
The right to water cannot be denied without infringing fundamental rights; government bodies are obliged to provide essential services where a right to life is implicated.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P6 imposes a condition on granting water connection which should be quashed; he seeks mandamus to compel the first respondent to provide water connection within a time specified by the Court. He relies on a prior order (W.P. 25828/2016) directing water connection and asserts that payment of fees has been made; the obstruction by the second respondent and the pending property disputes should not thwart a basic utility essential for life.

Contentions of Respondents

The Water Authority had expressed willingness to complete the water connection if adequate police protection could be provided to prevent obstruction by the second respondent or his affiliates; the matter involves disputes over land/ownership in a Tharavadu and pending appeals, making it necessary to balance immediate public utility against contested ownership.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Subhashkumar v. State of Bihar	AIR 1991 SC 420	Positive	Cited to establish that the right to water falls within the ambit of the fundamental right to life, justifying protection and non-denial of water connections.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **K.P. RAJENDRAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 65 YEARS,KOOVAKAD HOUSE, PACHALAM,COCHIN - 16.** **BY ADV SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, PALLIMUKKU,KOCHI - 16, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.** **2 AJITHKUMAR S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN SHETTY,AGED 50 YEARS, KOOVAKKAD HOUSE,PACHALAM, COCHIN - 16.** **BY ADVS. P.M.JOHNY SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.RAHUL** **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **2** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 27[TH] day of March 2024** Petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: - _“A. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction setting aside/quash the condition imposed in ext.P6 for granting water connection to the petitioner's premises in Ext.P6._ - _B. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding 1[st] respondent to provide water connection to the petitioner's premises within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court._ - _C. Any other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with cost, for the ends of justice.”_ **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **4** 2. Petitioner is residing in a portion of his 'Tharavadu' property. According to the petitioner, the property, in which he is residing, has been allocated to him by judgment and decree in O.S.No.510/98 of the Second Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. 3. Since there are disputes with regard to the amount fixed for share, an appeal is pending before this Court as R.F.A. No.178/2013. According to the petitioner, though separately allotted portion of the building is in his occupation, he is yet to obtain separate water and electric connections. Petitioner applied for water connection to his premises and when the same was delayed, he approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.25828/2016, which was disposed of by judgment dated 01.11.2016 directing the respondent to provide water connection to the petitioner. Thereafter, he claims to have paid the requisite fee to the Water Authority and Corporation. When the Water Authority, commenced their work, it was obstructed **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **5** by the 2[nd] respondent. When the work was obstructed by the 2[nd] respondent, Ext.P4 communication was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer, Water Authority to that effect. The Assistant Engineer stated that, if adequate protection is provided, they are willing to complete the work relating to water connection. On receipt of the above communication, petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. Though notice was issued to the 2[nd] respondent, there is no appearance. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Water Authority is willing to complete the work if adequate Police protection is provided to ensure that no obstruction will be caused by the 2[nd] respondent or anybody under him. 5. The right to get pure water is a fundamental right. No one can be deprived of it. In _**Subhashkumar v. State of Bihar [AIR 1991 SC 420]**_ the Apex Court held that the right to live includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **6** and air for full enjoyment of life. Hence denial of water connection to the petitioner definitely infringes his fundamental rights. 6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled to get water connection in his premises. 7. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to provide water connection to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case any obstruction is caused by the 2[nd] respondent or anybody under him, the petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent will be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Station House Officer of Police and seek police protection to complete the work. On receipt of such request along with a copy of this judgment, the S.H.O. concerned shall provide sufficient protection for completion of the work to the staff and labourers of the Water Authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **7** Ernakulam North Police Station is the jurisdictional Police Station. Therefore, the S.H.O. of the said Police Station shall take appropriate action as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/** **S.MANU, JUDGE** **jm/** **WP(C) NO. 41858 OF 2017** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41858/2017** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT P1.**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE IN**| |---|---| ||**O.S.NO.510/1996 DATED 31.10.2012 OF THE SUB**| ||**COURT, ERNAKULAM.**| |**EXHIBIT P2.**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)**| ||**NO.25828/2016 DATED 01.11.2016 OF THIS**| ||**HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3.**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.01.2017 OF**| ||**THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P4.**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED**| ||**31.01.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P5.**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.185/2017**| ||**IN W.P.(C) NO.25828/2016 DATED 27.02.2017 OF**| ||**THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT P6.**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT NIL DATED.**|