K.P.Dilip vs District Collector on 24 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23493 of 2009(F)


1. K.P.DILIP, AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.K.USHA DILIP, W/O.DILIP,

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR,

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. P.VIJAYACHANDRAN, PRESIDENT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :SRI.KKM.SHERIF

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :24/11/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.23493 OF 2009
                 -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009


                             JUDGMENT

1.The petitioners occupied a flat in a residential apartment

complex. The 4th respondent is the president of the registered

welfare association of the residents of that complex. The

petitioners seek relief by way of a direction to the third

respondent Assistant Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority

to effect reconnection of water supply at the expense of the 4th

respondent association.

2.The owners of the apartments enjoy water supply utilising

seven consumer numbers allotted by the Water Authority to

sever different persons, including the promotor and builder

and some of the directors of the company which had built the

structure. The water that is brought in through the seven

consumer numbers is controlled by the residents’ association

and distributed to all the apartment owners. In times of

WPC.23493/09

2

scarcity, water made available through tanker lorries is also

appropriately used. The association, in terms of the

resolutions drawn up in that regard, distributes the liability for

water charges also. Some time in 1998, there was a meeting

in which certain resolutions were drawn up. This is evidenced

by Ext.R4(a).

3.In the aforesaid scenario, the complaint in the writ petition is

about the alleged breach of duties and responsibilities by the

apartment owners’ association. The specific plea in the writ

petition is that the association had no right to disconnect

water supply to the petitioners. At the same time, the

petitioners do not have a case that they are consumers of

water supply directly from the Water Authority. Essentially,

the disputes are between the petitioners on the one hand and

the residents’ association on the other. This is a matter

relating to accounting between them and rights and liabilities

as members of the residents’ association and as owners of

WPC.23493/09

3

apartments. The issue is also part of the common facilities

which may be extended by disbursing expenditure.

It is not for this Court to exercise authority under Article 226

of the Constitution of India and resolve the disputes between

the apartment owners and owners’ association. If the

petitioners have any grievance, it is a matter to be taken up

before other competent courts or jurisdictions where the

matter could be tried after recording evidence. This writ

petition is, hence, dismissed without prejudice.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.24/11.