IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17115 of 2008(S)
1. SAVE CITIZEN'S FORUM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & WATER
3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED
4. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
6. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
7. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :16/07/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2008-S
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
The petitioner is a Society, registered under the provisions
of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Act,
1955. The petitioner Society is formed by a group of public spirited
citizens in Peruvanthanam Village of Peermedu Taluk in Idukki District,
with the object of rendering assistance to the public in respect of their
common grievances and problems, to fight against anti-social activities, to
prevent corruption, etc.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner in this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution, that, the 3rd respondent, viz., Kerala
Water Authortiy, represented by its Managing Director, has not taken
effective steps in completing the Haileyburia Water Supply Scheme in
Idukki District.
3. The main prayer made in the writ petition is to direct the
respondents to complete the aforesaid water supply scheme in Idukki
District within the time limit prescribed, by monitoring the same till its
completion and commissioning.
W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2008
– 2 –
4. The Kerala Water Authority has filed its counter affidavit
before this Court. In that, at paragraph 4, they have stated the steps that
they have taken between 2001 and 2006 for redressal of the grievances of
the petitioner. Further, at paragraph 5, they have stated that due to the
delay in getting land from Tyford Estate, construction of Master Tank and
Booster Tank were delayed and there is some delay in completing the
project/scheme in question. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, they
have stated that they are doing all their best to complete the scheme as
early as possible. It is also stated that they require another two years’ time
to complete the project/scheme. The affidavit filed by the respondents is
as under:
“5. Due to the delay in getting land from Tyford
Estate, construction of Master Tank and Booster Tank
were delayed. The estimate of pumping main are under
scrutiny at Chief Engineer’s (CR) Office, Kochi, except
Raw Water pumping main. The works related to Raw
Water Pumping main already tendered and tender
under scrutiny. The construction of Master Tank and 3
Nos. of Booster Tank were already tendered and the
tenders under scrutiny.
6. The petition argument is untrue. The project
work under this office are in good progress. We made
our best for the completion of the works. The officials
of Kerala Water Authority and the political parties are
very much interested for the completion of the scheme
W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2008
– 3 –
and expected to complete scheme within two years. But
due to unexpected reason, the completion of the
scheme delayed. The war foot steps are already taken
for the completion of the work in time by Kerala Water
Authority. No negligence has occurred from the
Government of Kerala as Kerala Water Authority for
the completion of the work. But some unexpected
reason, the work delayed.”
5. The main grievance of the petitioner, as we have already
stated, is that there is lethargic attitude on the part of the 3rd respondent in
completing the Haileyburia Water Supply Scheme in Idukki District. The
delay in completing the project is properly explained by the contesting
respondents. In our view, we need to only accept the explanation
offered. Since the contesting respondent, namely, Kerala Water
Authority, has undertaken before this Court that this project will be
completed as early as possible, it may not be necessary to continue to keep
this file on the board..
6. In view of the above, keeping in view the urgency of the
project canvassed by the petitioner-Society, in our opinion, if one year’s
time is granted from today to complete the project/scheme, it will not
cause any prejudice to the respondent – Kerala Water Authority.
Accordingly, we grant one year time from today to complete the
project/scheme.
W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2008
– 4 –
7. Accordingly, placing on record the affidavit of the third
respondent, we dispose of the writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer
Judge
vku/dk.