O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 21..10..2009 is as follows: Petitioner applied for water connection to the opposite parties on 13..3..2008. Second opposite party accepted the application for connection and issued a receipt to the petitioner. Petitioner approached the District Collector, Kottayam for getting water supply. In reply to the petition submitted by the petitioner, District Collector, Kottayam informed the petitioner that application for the connection given to the opposite party is not registered in the office of the opposite party furthermore connection will be provided considering the seniority. Opposite party also directed petitioner to secure consent of the person -2- holding property through which the pipe line is to be drawn. According to the petitioner property proposed through which pipe line is to be drawn is a public pathway and there is no necessity to secure a consent letter from anybody. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in denying water supply to the petitioner is a clear deficiency in service. Petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to provide water connection to the petitioner with immediate effect. Petitioner also prays for cost and compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner had not submitted application for water connection to the opposite party. What the petitioners referred to be as application is a representation seen submitted to the District Collector, Kottayam , which in turn was endorsed by the ADM to the office of the opposite party for urgent action. No action could be able to be taken on the request submitted by the petitioner as he has not submitted prescribed application. Even if he submitted any application opposite party cannot provide water connection because all the procedures related to the water connection are kept frozen in Vaikom Minicipality and adjoining panchayaths with effect from January, 2007. Petitioner’s panchayath also comes under the above locality where the ban is applicable. The above restriction is on account of the prevailing scarcity of the drinking water connection in the above areas and any further connection will adversely affect the existing connections. There is already vide gap between demand and supply of drinking water in Vaikom area. The -3- restriction is likely to be lifted only on commissioning of the augmentation of water supply scheme. Even if the petitioner submitted prescribed application he has to get the consent of Mr. Vijayan, neighbour of the petitioner for taking pipe line through his property. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents. Point No. 1 Case of the petitioner is that he is not getting water supply even after submitting the application to the opposite party. According to the opposite party due to the ban and scarcity of drinking water connection is not given to the petitioner. Further more opposite party contented that restriction is likely to be lifted only on commissioning of the augmentation of existing water supply scheme. In our view we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is disposed with a direction to the 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party shall give water supply to the -4- petitioner after augmentation of the commissioning of the existing water supply scheme. Petitioner’s application for water supply, if any submitted by him, shall be considered on priority basis. Petition is disposed with aforesaid direction. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of application submitted by the petitioners District Collector, Kottayam Dtd: 4..3..2008 Ext. A2: Copy of the application given by the petitioner to the second opposite party. Ext. A3: Copy of the receipt issued by the second opposite party Dtd: 14..3..2008 Ext. A4: Copy of the report given by the second opposite party to the District Collector Dtd: 4..4..2008. Documents for the opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of the letter Dtd: 4..9..2008. By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
