GEETA KUMAR Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 25th August 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a direction was given to the appellant/petitioner to file an application seeking impleadment of legal heirs of Late Shri Ram Lubhaya in the writ petition preferred by her. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the grievance raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that the appellant has filed sufficient documents to prove her occupation on the premises in question and also made an averment in the petition that the other legal heirs of Late Shri Ram Lubhaya had been harassing her and refused to give any no objection for the grant of any independent water connection in her favour. It is also the case of the appellant that she is entitled to adequate water supply in terms of Section 13 read with Section 21 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998.

(2.) On the last date, when this matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Suresh Tripathi, Advocate had entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent and Mr. Tripathi was impressed upon by the Court to take instructions as to why the appellant is being deprived of independent water connection, despite there being ample documents to prove her occupation having been placed on record. Today, when this matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. D.C. Jain, Zonal Revenue Officer appeared in the matter and as per the instructions given by him, Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent took a stand that grant of no objection by the owner or his legal heirs is imperative as per the Regulations as ultimately in all such cases, the apprehension is the recovery of dues is not made by the occupier and if no objection is given by the owner/landlord, then at least the respondents can recover the dues from the owner/landlord. The learned counsel for the respondent also raised a contention that the connection is provided to the premises and not to the person and therefore, as per the regulations, the Respondent has to feel satisfied that the person seeking grant of independent water connection has some interest in the premises in question. Not feeling satisfied with the submissions of counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, the Court directed the presence of some senior person who can give better instructions so as to resolve the matter. Court, thus orally directed the learned counsel for the respondent to ensure presence of Joint Director in post lunch session. In compliance of the directions, Mr. V.P. Tanwar, Joint Director (South) had appeared in this matter but without any change in the stand. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that if the water connection to the occupier is permitted in the absence of no objection then it will set a wrong precedent.

(3.) We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides and the documents placed on record were also perused.