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.