Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 692 (JHR)

Shashi Kant Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2, Jamshedpur Utility Services Company (JUSCO) is not providing water connection in the Flat nos.505, 506 and 507 owned and possessed by the petitioner at 5th floor, Akas Deep Plaza, Golmuri, Jamshedpur. The petitioner has also impleaded the builder as respondent no.4 alleging against him that the respondent no.4 had refused to supply water to the flats of the petitioner. 3. On the averment made in the writ petition as also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that he had approached the District Consumer Forum, Jamshedpur in Consumer Case No.64/2009, which was dismissed on 6th August, 2009, vide Annexure 4. The appeal against the said order of dismissal was also dismissed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, vide order dated 27th May, 2011 in F.A.No.286/2009. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the dismissal of the aforesaid application and appeal were on technical ground not treating the petitioner as a consumer. The aforesaid cause of action of the petitioner against the concerned respondent-JUSCO and the private respondent is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 5. Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, however, submits that it is not in dispute that water is being supplied to the multistory building in question constructed by the respondent no.4 where the petitioner has three flats. However, the petitioner has a dispute inter se with the builder and he is seeking separate connection on 5th floor of the building from the respondent-company that is not permissible as in cases of multistory building the water connection is supplied to the building in question. If the petitioner had grievance against the respondent no.4, he had to agitate it in a proper forum impleading the builder as respondent but he failed to do so. 6. In any case, it is submitted that the aforesaid grievances are not fit to be entertained in the writ jurisdiction of this Court as the dispute appears to be private in nature. 7. From the facts, which have been brought on record and indicated hereinabove, the petitioner appears to have a grievance with the builder, respondent no.4, who had refused to supply water. It is not in dispute that the water in question is being supplied to the building by JUSCO. 7. From the facts, which have been brought on record and indicated hereinabove, the petitioner appears to have a grievance with the builder, respondent no.4, who had refused to supply water. It is not in dispute that the water in question is being supplied to the building by JUSCO. In the present facts and circumstance, the dispute is inter se between the petitioner and the respondent no.4. However, the petitioner may have an alternative remedy but the present cause of action is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.