Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 PETITIONER/S: C.K.JAMES AGED 62 YEARS S/O. KURIAKOSE, CHENNAMVELI HOUSE, PONNUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680306. BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR P.R.REENA P.S.SIDHARTHAN MAYA M. RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, SUB DIVISION OFFICER, RAVIPURAM, OLD THEVARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682016. 2 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, 1ST SECTION OFFICE, RAVIPURAM, OLD THEVARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682016. BY ADVS. BIJILY JOSEPH V.V.JOSHI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2022 The petitioner had constructed a commercial building in his property admeasuring 10 cents, comprised in Survey No.835/4 of Mulavukadu Village (Re.Sy.No.198/14). After completing the construction, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondents for obtaining water connection on 03.08.2016. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inordinate and unexplained delay in acting upon the petitioner's application.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that
the respondents are under a mistaken impression that the ground floor area of the petitioner's building is 1716.39 M2, whereas the total area of the building is 1716.39 M2 and the ground floor area is only 179.74 M 2. The other reason stated in the counter affidavit is that if the plinth area of the building being more than 500 M2, water connection has to be given from pipes with 160 mm diameter or above size. Learned Counsel drew attention to the definition of the terms "Plinth" and "Plinth area" under Section 2 (bt) and (bu) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, as per which, ‘plinth’ means the portion of a structure between the surface of the surrounding surface of the floor and ‘plinth area’ means area of the building at the plinth level. It is therefore contended that only the ground floor area can be reckoned for the purpose of calculating plinth area. If so, the plinth area of the petitioner's building is only 179.74 M2 in which case, there cannot be any insistence to draw connection from pipe with diameter of 160 mm or more.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for Water Authority
submitted that the data available with the respondents, the plinth area of petitioner's building being above 500 M2, connection can be given only from pipes of 160 mm diameter or above. If the petitioner is willing to take water connection as CSME, the respondents will prepare the estimate and submit for approval. The rough cost for CSME will work out to Rs.6,06,600/- and restoration charge for getting road cutting sanction will be around 25 lakhs.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, once the misconception about the plinth area of the building is cleared, respondents will be able to provide water authority without insisting for additional charges, particularly when the opposite building having plinth area of 250 M2 has been given connection. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find
that the issue can be resolved by directing to respondents to consider the petitioner’s contention that the plinth area of the building is only 179.74 M2 and the total area is 1716.39 M2. If the contention is found to be correct, necessarily the petitioner will have to be granted connection without demanding additional charges.
In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s application for water connection and to take a reasoned decision thereon, if necessary by affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and calling for supporting documents. While taking the decision, specific reference shall be made to the petitioner’s contention that the plinth area of the building is 179.74M2 and there is no requirement of obtaining water connection through pipes of 160 MM and above diameter. The order, as directed above, shall be passed within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- V.G.ARUN, JUDGE RK APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15813/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY MULAVUKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 11.8.2008. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN OF PETITIONER'S BUILDING Exhibit P4 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING OF C.V. STEPHEN SITUATED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING