DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 11^th  day of July, 2022

Present        :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                    :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                                                         

                   :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member   

     Date of Filing: 02/12/2015 

     CC/183/2015

1.Girish K Nochulli,

    S/o.K.K.Rajan,

    Kallenparambil House,

    Nochulli P.O.,    Kuzhalmannam,

    Alathur Taluk – 678 702

2.K.K.Rajan,

   S/o.Kandamuthan,

    Kallenparambil House,

    Nochulli P.O.,    Kuzhalmannam,

    Alathur Taluk – 678 702

3.Remani,

    W/o.K.K.Rajan,

    Kallenparambil House,

    Nochulli P.O.,    Kuzhalmannam,

    Alathur Taluk – 678 702

(By Adv.Girish K. Nochulli)                                                     -           Complainants

                                                                                                  Vs

1. The District Collector,

Civil Station,

Project Advisory Committee Chairman,

Malampuzha Dam Irrigation, Palakkad – 1              

2. Executive Engineer,

Irrigation Office,Malampuzha Dam,

             Malampuzha Dam (PO),

            Palakkad -  678 651

3. Asst.Executive Engineer,

            Kurissi-Pampadi Kuzhamannam Branch 2

            Canal, Malampuzha Irrigation,  AE Office,

            Erimayur Post, Palakkad – 678 546

4. Executive Engineer,

Command Area Development Authority,

District Office, Palakkad

5. Village Officer,

Kuzhalmannam – 1,

Kuzhalmannam Post,

Alathur Taluk – 678 702

6. Agricultural Officer,

       Kuzhalmannam Krishi Bhavan,

              Kuzhalmannam – 678 702.

            (Supplementary OP 6)

7. PWD Executive Engineer,

       Roads Division, Civil Station, Palakkad

       (Supplementary OP 7)

              (By Govt.Pleader)                                                      -           Opposite parties

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. The complainants are aggrieved  by the turn system of water allotment resorted to by the opposite parties in providing water to the paddy cultivating farmers of Nochulli Padasekshara Nellulpadaka Samithi. The said samithi has over hundred hecters of paddy under cultivation. They depend on Kuzhalmannam branch 2 Malampuzha Canal for second crop. The said canal is under the control of the opposite parties. Due to construction mistake in the canal,  water flow is on the opposite direction and free flow of water was obstructed and hence the end users / beneficiaries are left to suffer and the crops are destroyed. Even after representation to various authorities,  no steps  were taken to correct / rectify the defective water supply.  For the last 15 years the complainants have been suffering due to the turn system of water supply adopted by the opposite parties. So this complaint was filed seeking the following reliefs.

1. “This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite parties to give to the complainant a sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand only)  with interest @18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization for the loss sustained to them due to the no irrigation of water (?)
2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite parties to give sufficient water for the irrigation of Paddy fields of the complainants without turn system.
3. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite parties to complete the repairing works of the Malampuzha – Kuzhalmannam irrigation Branch 2 -  Nochulli Canal immediately till the end of the canal at Nochulli Padasekharam.
4. Direct the opposite parties to allot the fund for construction of side protection wall, complete the repairing work of Malampuzha – Kuzhalmannam irrigation Branch 2-  Nochulli Canal immediately till Nochulli Padasekharam.
5. Direct the opposite parties to evict the encroachments of private parties in the above canal bunds and in the canal and remove the unauthorized bridges constructed by the private parties on the canal bund, for the free flow of water”.

2.         Eventhough the opposite parties had filed detailed version countering  the pleadings above we are not taking recourse to the said pleadings as this Commission is skeptical regarding  maintainability of the complaint before this Commission.

3.         Hence,  we went through the pleadings in detail.

4.         A reading of the pleadings in the complaint shows that the grievance of the complaint is with regard to a Govt. function carried out by the opposite parties for equitable distribution of water through irrigation canals after considering the various ground realities and end user necessities. Merits of such administrative decisions are not a subject matters that are to be considered by this Commission. Further no consideration as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act pass hands making the complainants herein  a complainant as contemplated under the Act. Paying tax for a Govt. function can never be equated as payment of consideration since the element of quid pro-quo is absent in the case of payment of tax.  The opposite parties can under no circumstance be considered to be service providers in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

5.         The reliefs sought for  are not of such a nature as can be considered by this Commission. They pertain to Govt. function which is beyond the ambit of consideration of this Commission.  Any traverse by this Commission into the grievance highlighted herein would be nothing but ultravires the authority of this Commission.

Hence, the complaint is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 11^th  day of July,  2022.

                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

         Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member     

                               Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

 Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Court Witness

 Nil

Cost :  No cost allowed

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.