GOWRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by this petition, the petitioner has challenged the endorsement of the chairman of the Bangalore water supply and sewerage board dated 2-9-1993 (annexure g) and has prayed that the same may be declared illegal, null and void and be quashed or set aside. The petitioner has further prayed that a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus be issued to respondent No. 2 to issue appropriate permit or licence to the petitioner for taking new water connection in respect of the house constructed by her after getting the portion of the house in partition under partition decree dated 3-9-1988, a copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure a1. The whole purpose of the petitioner appears to be that, as on account of partition, the whole house had been partitioned among the co-owners and on her portion, she has reconstructed the building and thereafter the petitioner applied for the new water connection being provided to her for supply of sufficient water for domestic consumption and use of the house of the persons living in the house. As per the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner had moved that application some time in January 1993 and thereafter she made representations on 3-8-1993 and 6-8-1993. A perusal of Annexure e no doubt, shows that originally application was moved on 11-1-1993 and thereafter prior to 3-8-1993, thrice representations were made on 25-1-1993, 28-4-1993 and 12-5-1993. Annexure g, which is dated 2-9-1993, bears the title indicating subject "providing new water connection". In this letter, it has been stated that the request for domestic water supply connection has been rejected as, according to the chairman, it has been observed that water supply line is situated at a distance of 160 ft. From the premises of the petitioner and as such, under the Provisions of the Act, particularly, after reference to Section 32(3) of the act having been made along with regulation 5(2) of the regulations, it has been stated that the distance is more than 33 matres and that the water supply connection cannot be sanctioned. Feeling aggrieved from this order contained in Annexure g, the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india.

(2.) on behalf of respondent No. 2, counter affidavit has be enfiled. In the paragraph, which deals with para 13 of the writ petition, it has been stated on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had made a request for separate water supply connection and that "the concerned officials of the board have examined the property in question and observed that the water supply line is situated at a distance of about 160 ft. Away from the said premises. As per section 32(3) of the Bangalore water supply and sewerage Act, 1964 and regulation 5(2), which has been referred to in the act as bwssb, the distance between water supply sub-main and the premises should be within 33 metres. It is further stated therein that in the above area in the old city all the connections were sanctioned in the said road quite a long time back and then, a reference has been made to Annexure g. It has been further stated that there has been no existing water supply line in front of the premises. Hence, it is not the responsibility of the Bangalore city corporation to extend the water supply connection through bwssb, the 2nd respondent." an attempt has also been made to state that, if water connections are sanctioned for long distances, then the pressure varies directly with the level of the reservoir and power supply. So connection cannot be given more than at a distance of 33 metres. Dealing with paragraphs 14 to 24, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that, since tax is paid to the Bangalore city corporation authorities, it is the responsibility of the concerned authorities to provide basic amenities basically water supply and sanitary amenities through bwssb, Bangalore. The petitioner has to represent to the Bangalore city corporation, the 3rd respondent herein and to deposit necessary charges to lay the water supply line where the sub-main does not exist. After receiving necessary requisition from the Bangalore city corporation, the estimate will be forwarded to the Bangalore city corporation for depositing the necessary amount to lay a line and to provide necessary water supply connections. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this respondent cannot violate the rules and regulations framed by the government exclusively for implementing them in public interest. After making these allegations in the counter affidavit, it is stated therein that the petition has got no merits and should be dismissed.

(3.) i have heard Sri Yoganarasimha, counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Sri Shankar narayana belur, counsel for respondent No. 2 and I have also heard b.j. somayaji, learned government pleader who represent respondent No. 1. On behalf of the corporation, respondent No. 3, appearance has been put up by Sri H.J.Sundarkumar, learned counsel.