Umamahcsvvari Gardens And Sunitha Enclave Flat Owners v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.14211 of 2015 Dated 30th November, 2015 Between:

Umamaheswari Gardens & Sunitha Enclave Flat Owners Welfare Association

...Petitioner

And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Tuhin Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Administration (AP) Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 6: Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Dispute between the residents of two blocks of the same apartment with regard

to sharing of drinking water being supplied by respondent No.2 has led to the filing of this writ petition.

On behalf of the petitioner, which represents 'A' block, it is stated in the affidavit that out of the two water supply connections which were meant for both 'A' and 'B' blocks, water was stopped to one of the connections and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are making efforts to shift the connection from 'A' block to 'B' block. Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, submitted that as there is a dispute between the associations of 'A' block and 'B' block on the right to use fresh water, the residents of 'B' block have made a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for shifting of one of the two taps from 'A' block to 'B' block and that so far neither water has been stopped to one of the two taps as alleged by the petitioner nor the tap has been shifted to 'B' block.

He has further submitted that as the representation is made by the residents of 'B' block, a notice will be issued to the petitioner which represents 'A' block and the representatives of 'B' block and after hearing both of them, a decision will be taken on the request of the residents of 'B' block as to whether one of the two existing taps shall be shifted to 'B' block or not and the same will be communicated to both the parties.

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to do the needful as represented by the learned Standing Counsel and continue to supply water to both the taps till a decision on shifting of one of the taps is taken. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take a decision and complete the above exercise relating to the request of the residents of 'B' block within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.18616 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th November, 2015 VGB