IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9783 of 2009(P)
1. SEBASTIAN N.J.,NELLIYANI HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABY THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/04/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.9783 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Nelliyani
area in Ward No.21of Palai Municipality, and a beneficiary of
Nelliyani-Pendanam Vayal road. It is stated that the residents of the
area were being provided water by the Kerala Water Authority. In
2006, following the repair works of the aforesaid road undertaken by
the 2nd respondent, the pipe lines were damaged and despite the fact
that the road work has been completed, damages has not been
rectified and water supply has not been restored. It is with this
grievance, the writ petition has been filed praying to direct the
respondents to restore water supply.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on
instructions, submits that on account of the work undertaken by the
2nd respondent, pipes laid covering an area of 1.5 Kms. laid through
the road were damaged. According to him, though the amount for
rectification should have been remitted by the PWD or its contractor,
despite demands being made, they have not so far remitted the
WP(C) No.9783/2009
-2-
amount. It is stated that this is the reason for delay in rectifying the
damages and restoring water supply.
3. However, inviting my attention to Ext.P4, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that, even according to the 1st
respondent, a portion of the damaged pipes were replaced by the
Water Authority and water supply in that area has been restored. A
reading of Ext.P4 shows that the learned counsel is right in his
submission. If that be the admitted factual position, there cannot
be a different yardstick in so far as the area, where the petitioner is
residing, is concerned. If according to the 1st respondent, the cost
of rectification is to be remitted by the 2nd respondent, though it is
open to the 1st respondent to realise the same, the delay in the
remittance cannot be a reason for delaying rectification of the
damaged pipes and restoration of the water supply. The 1st
respondent should certainly adopt a common yardstick and if so,
they are bound to restore the water supply without delay.
4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
1st respondent to rectify the damaged pipes and restore water
supply in the Nelliyani area, Ward No.21 of Palai Municipality.
However, it is clarified that if the 1st respondent is entitled to have
WP(C) No.9783/2009
-3-
the cost for rectifying the damaged pipes realised from the 2nd
respondent, it is always open to the 1st respondent to do so.
5. The work shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg