IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5793 of 2008(M)
1. V.K.RAJA,S/O.K.VIJAYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK LEGAL SERVICE
... Respondent
2. KRISHNAN KUMARI M.NADESAN
3. THE ASST. ENGINEER
For Petitioner :SRI.G.BENO
For Respondent :SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/03/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
————————————
W.P.(C) 5793 of 2008
————————————-
Dated:JUDGMENT 2008
MARCH 27,
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P5, a
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent and
numbered as PLP 176/2007.
2. Since the proceedings before the 1st respondent are
governed by consensus between the parties, unless the petitioner
agrees, no adverse order can be passed by the 1st respondent.
Therefore, there is no reason for the petitioner to be aggrieved by
the pendency of Ext.P5 before the 1st respondent.
3. The further prayer sought for is that the 1st respondent has
no jurisdiction to proceed with Ext.P5. If, according to the
petitioner, the 1st respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P5
complaint, it is for the petitioner to appraise the 1st respondent this
jurisdictional defect and seek appropriate orders.
4. In so far as the claim of the 2nd respondent for water
connection to his building is concerned, I notice that the matter, as
at present, is governed by Ext.R2(f) order of the civil court wherein
the petitioner herein, being the defendant, is restrained by an order
WP(C) 5793/08 Page numbers
of temporary injunction from obstructing the taking of water
connection to the house situated in the A schedule to the plaint,
which is the residential building of the 2nd respondent. Though it
is on record that against Ext.R2(f), petitioner has filed a C.M.Appeal
before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara, it is the common
case of the parties that there is no order staying the operation of
Ext.R2(f) order. If that be so, the 2nd respondent is entitled to enjoy
the fruits of the order so long as it stands as such.
5. Thus, in view of Ext.R2(f) order, I direct that it will be open
to the Water Authority to consider the application made by the 2nd
respondent on merits without insisting on the consent of the
petitioner herein. It is clarified that in case Ext.R2(f) order is upset
by the Appellate Court or at the stage of final disposal of the suit, it
will be open to the petitioner to seek necessary modification at the
hands of the Water Authority itself.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-