KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 37/2023
ORDER DATED: 10.08.2023
(Against the Order in I.A. No.28/2021 in C.C. No. 238/2020 of CDRC, Tvpm)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Karamana Section, Thiruvananthapuram.
- Assistant Executive Engineer, PTP Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.
- M.D., Kerala Water Authority, Jalabhavan.
(By Adv. Issac Samuel)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Shahazade Beegum I.R., D/o Raiha Beevi, T.C. 23/1285(1), Melarannoor, Karamana P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 002.
(By Adv. Mary Kunju John)
- Shakila Beegum, T.C. 23/1285(4), Melarannoor, CIT Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 002.
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application filed by the counter petitioners 1 to 3 in I.A. No.28/2021 in C.C. No. 238/2020 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (will be referred as District Commission for brevity) against the order passed on 14.06.2022 whereby the District Commission had directed the Revision petitioners to provide water connection to the complainant in her Consumer No.7679/D within 30 days.
2. The revision petitioners have challenged the order on the following grounds:
For effecting repair or alteration previous sanction is required from the Assistant Executive Engineer and the requisite fee also should be remitted. For compliance of the order, cutting sanction from PWD is required. But so far no sanction has been obtained. The District Commission had passed the order without considering these aspects. Hence the petitioners would seek for the intervention of this Commission in the matter by revision.
3. When the matter came up for consideration the consumer Smt. Shahazade Beegum filed an affidavit that on 25.07.2023 PWD had given her permission to draw the pipe connection. This matter arose from a dispute between the consumer and her elder sister. Both siblings appeared before us. The 2nd respondent who is the elder sister of the consumer stated that she has no objection in allowing the consumer to draw an interim connection.
4. The main ground raised in the revision is that it was not possible to draw the water pipe without obtaining the permission from PWD since the pipe is to be installed by crossing the tarred road. Since the consumer has already obtained permission from the PWD and the rival party (the second respondent) expressed her no objection in allowing the interim connection the apprehension regarding the implementation of the impugned order ceases to exist. So the revision has become infructuous.
In the result, the revision is dismissed as infructuous.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
