Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 660 (MAD)

Arumugam v. President & Another

2010-02-18

S.RAJESWARAN

body2010
Judgment : This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to disconnect drinking water connection for the petitioner’s house located in Door No.2/110, West Car Street, Keela Sevalpatti, Thiruppatur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is residing in the address in D.No.2/110, West Car Street, Kila Sevalpatti, Thiruppatur Taluk, Sivagangai District. It is his own property and house tax has been paid by him till date. On 2. 2003, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- for getting new water connection under Suva Jasthara Rural Drinking Water Scheme and the respondents have also given a receipt for that. Since nothing was heard thereafter, a representation was given on 16. 2009 to the second respondent in respect of that. On 26. 2009, the first respondent directed the petitioner to dig up two feet depth soil and be ready with pipe equipments to enable the panchayat to extend the supply. On reporting readiness, the Panchayat on 26. 2009 provided the water connection and a sum of Rs.650/- was received towards labour charges. While so, on 7. 2009, the first respondent served a letter to the petitioner stating that permission from the temple administration was not obtained for water connection and steps would be taken to disconnect the water connection. Though there is a dispute in respect of a path way and a suit is also filed by the petitioner and the same is pending, the path way dispute is no way connected with the drinking water connection, given to the petitioner. Since 24 Hrs notice was issued for disconnection of the water connection the above writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid prayer. 3. This Court on 17. 2009 granted the order of injunction. 4. But, despite the order of injunction granted in favour of the petitioner, the drinking water connection to the petitioner has been disconnected by the respondents after the order of injunction was granted and the same was also reported to the Court. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, because of the objection raised by the Managing Trustee, Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam Kilasevalpatti to the first respondent on 7. 2009 stating that the petitioner was running a hotel in the property belonging to Devasthanam, the petitioner’s water connection was disconnected on 7. 2009. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, because of the objection raised by the Managing Trustee, Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam Kilasevalpatti to the first respondent on 7. 2009 stating that the petitioner was running a hotel in the property belonging to Devasthanam, the petitioner’s water connection was disconnected on 7. 2009. The further case of the first respondent is that the petitioner has no title over the suit property and it belongs to Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanbam. Kilasevalpatti. Therefore, the action of the first respondent is in accordance with law. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. I have also gone through the documents available record including the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. 7. Admittedly, the drinking water connection given to the petitioner premises has been disconnected by the respondents on the objection raised by the Devasthanam. Water being essential for life, the water connection has to be extended to a person who is residing in a house regardless of the title of the property. The Courts have been repeatedly holding that essential items like water, electricity cannot be deprived to a person. In this case, the existing water connection has been disconnected at the instance of a third party, who claims title over the property of the petitioner. 8. Therefore, in my considered view, the objection by a party, who claims ownership of the property, cannot be a ground for disconnecting the existing water connection. If the Devasthanam has a right over the property of the petitioner, they should have approached the appropriate civil forum and established their rights. They could have also obtained interim orders therein. Having not done that, they have resorted to this illegal method of disconnecting the water supply to (sic) the respondents. The respondents have blindly followed the instructions of the Devasthanam and caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. Ownership of the property is no issue for getting the basic amenities excepting the proof possession. In this connection, the water connection was extended to the petitioner. Therefore, disconnection of the existing water connection is wholly unsustainable both in law and on facts, 9. Ownership of the property is no issue for getting the basic amenities excepting the proof possession. In this connection, the water connection was extended to the petitioner. Therefore, disconnection of the existing water connection is wholly unsustainable both in law and on facts, 9. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to restore the service connection to the petitioner immediately, not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Whether, the land belongs to the petitioner or the Devasthanam is a question, which the parties have to resolve it in the civil Court. The Commissioner, the second respondent herein is la directed to monitor the restoration of disconnected water connection to the petitioner’s premises. 10. If there is any resistance by any one, excepting with an order of counts, the petitioner can seek the help of the police officers for getting the water connection restored. 11. The impleading petition filed by the proposed 3rd respondent Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam. Kilasevalpatti, is concerned, in my view, they are not a necessary party in this proceeding. They can always approach the civil forum, if they have any right, to establish their rights. Therefore, the impleading petition is dismissed. No costs. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Petition allowed.