Water Supply | Residential Apartment Which Is Neither Flat Nor Multi-Storied Building Entitled To Domestic Connection: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that where an apartment does not fall within the ambit of the definition of flat or multi-storied building under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (hereinafter, 'Act, 1986'), the owners of such apartment could not be insisted upon to apply for a Contributory Street Main Extension (CSME) connection. 

Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed, 

"...If the apartment in question comes under a flat or multi-storied building, then Section 38A of the Act, 1986 would come into play along with Appendix 'B' of the Regulations, 1991. But here is a case, where the apartment in question would not come under a flat or multi-storied building and therefore, is entitled for a domestic connection". 

The petitioner herein is one of the owners of two flats in a four floor flat consisting of eight apartments, namely, 'Metro Heights'. It is the petitioner's case that the Kerala Water Authority had not provided a service connection to the residential apartment, due to which the petitioner and the other occupants of the flat were using filtered well water to meet their daily requirements. The petitioner had thus filed an application for and on behalf of the residents of the apartment, for a new domestic connection. 

The petitioner had stated that the premises of the flat had an existing water pipe connection through a ¾ pipe in the name of one Subhadra, another apartment owner. However, it was averred that this connection had been lying idle without being connected to the premises. It is the petitioner's case that a pipeline laid by the Kerala Water Authority for the purpose of giving general water supply connection is available in front of the residential complex and the pressure in the main line would be sufficient for providing water connection.

It was also submitted that despite the petitioner's efforts, the Permanent Lok Adalat (3rd respondent herein) was not taking any action because of which the petitioner had to file another writ earlier. In that petition, the Court had directed the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority to consider the petitioner's application, pursuant to which, the latter was issued a notice asking him to apply for a CSME connection.

Petitioner's grievance

The petitioner represented by Advocates Dileep Varghese and Tesmy Varghese submitted that he was not liable to apply for a CSME connection for expending huge amounts since, the residential apartment complex occupied by the petitioner and others would not come under the term flat as provided under the Act, 1986. It was further submitted that the petitioner and other residents of the apartment were entitled to get the connection from the existing line and would not have to pay for a CSME connection. 

This was however, controverted by the Kerala Water Authority which argued that the apartment complex of the petitioner would come under the definition of multi-storied building defined under the Act, 1986, since the entire apartment complex exceeded five or more units or having a total plinth area of 500 square meters or more, and the petitioner would thus be liable to apply for a CSME connection. The Standing Counsel of the Authority Georgie Johny placed reliance on Regulation 6 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter, 'Regulations, 1991') and submitted that no house connection shall be given to any applicant, if in the opinion of the Assistant Executive Engineer, the pressure in the main is not sufficient for providing the connection and not more than one house connection shall ordinarily be given to a premises.

Findings of the Court

The Court in this case perused the definitions of 'flat' and 'multi-storied building' as defined under Section 2(xa) and Section 2(xva) of the Act, 1986, respectively, and observed as follows:

"Going by the definition of 'flat', it deals with dwelling units exceeding ten in number or buildings for a total plinth area of thousand square meters or more in a premise. Admittedly, the petitioner will not come under the same since the parameters provided thereunder would not apply to the petitioner. In so far as multi-storied building is concerned, going by the definition given under Section 2(xva), it would have applied if the building in question is one used for non-domestic activities with or without any dwelling unit. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's building is a residential apartment complex having only eight units and less than one thousand square meters. Therefore, the building in question does not come under the definition of either the flat or multi-storied building". 

On this basis, the Court found that the petitioner would not be liable to apply for water connection under Section 38A of the Act, 1986.

Perusing the Regulations, 1991, the Court observed that the apartment in question would be entitled for a domestic connection. 

Rejecting the argument raised by the Standing Counsel of the Water Authority that if the pressure in the main is not sufficient, no house connection need be granted, the Court observed that at the very outset, the Assistant Executive Engineer while issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner, did not have a case that there was no sufficient pressure in the main for providing water connection. On the other hand, the petitioner had a definite case that a main was available in front of the apartment and a connection was required to be provided. 

"Upshot of the above discussion is that, writ petition is allowed and there will be a direction to the second respondent, i.e., the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Sub Division, Vyttila, Kochi – 682 020, to provide a house/domestic connection to the petitioner, on the petitioner satisfying the requirements for the said purpose, if not already done, at the earliest, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a direction to the petitioner to comply with all the requirements as per the provisions of the Act, 1986 and the Regulations, 1991, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already done," the Court concluded while allowing the petition. 

Case Title: Antony C.L. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 215 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment