Mathaikutty v. P.A.Cherian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 1936 WA.No. 1256 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).12997/2010 --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12997/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24/6/2010 APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WPC::

---------------------------------------------------------------------- MATHAIKUTTY, S/O.MATHAI KONGALATHU MUPPIRIAYIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERRY MURI, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS.SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SRI.SAJU JOSE RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1,2, & 4 IN THE WPC: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. P.A.CHERIAN, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM AZHANTHRA HOUSE, KULAKKAD, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA.

2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL RY SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA NO.1256/10 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1:

COPY OF THE STATEMENT FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE KWA.

ANNEXURE 2:

PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY.

//True Copy// PA to Judge Rp

ANTONY DOMINIC & ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.

=============================== Writ Appeal No. 1256 of 2010 ==================== Dated this the 6th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Antony Dominic, J.

This appeal is filed against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge on 24/6/10 in WP(C) No.12997/2010 directing restoration of water connection to the 1st respondent through the property of the appellant. Though this appeal was admitted as early as on 23/7/10 and this Court did not stay the operation of the interim order, parties accept that the order is still not implemented allegedly due to the physical obstruction by the appellant. 2.

Having regard to the fact that the appeal is against an interim order, that the writ petition filed in 2010 is still pending and also taking note of the long lapse of time in between, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the rival contentions. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal directing the Registry to post the writ petition itself for hearing, so that, instead of the parties

W.A.No.1256/10 : 2 :

agitating their rights relying on the interim order, they can get the writ petition itself disposed of finally.

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge