AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Patwari, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is recipient of insufficient water supply from the Corporation. He relies on a document appearing to have been issued by Central Ground Water Authority regarding estimation of water requirement for drinking and domestic use. The document says, inter alia, for communities with population above one lakh together with full flushing system, estimated water requirement is 150 to 200 litres per head. He submits, there are seven occupants in the house of petitioner, built on approximately two cottahs of land, getting 65 litres of water per day. On query from Court as to how this calculation was made, he refers to paragraphs 5, which says as follows:-
"The petitioner state that the said premises is not receiving adequate water supply from Respondent No.1 at said premises. The water supply timing in the morning is 7.30 A.M. to 8.10 A.M. (Approximately) and in the evening is 5.10 P.M. to 5.25 P.M. (Approximately). In entire day the said premises only receive 65 litres of water (Approximately) which is inadequate for surviving and leading a normal life."
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation and hands up print of a photograph, on copy served, to show a pipe drawn from a stand post, which is a public tap. He substantiates the depiction by reference to, inter alia, complaint dated 4th May, 2016 made on behalf of petitioner, in which allegation is misuse of water by neighbours and decrease in pressure because adjacent plot owner has got new water supply connection. Mr. Mukherjee submits further, petitioner has not taken direct water supply to the premises. He further relies on a note bearing, inter alia, signature of Executive Engineer put on 21st December, 2019, regarding complaint of petitioner. Following from the note is reproduced below:-
"Moreover we have severally inspected the complainant premises (2/26 Azadgarh) previously at present the water pressure from the service main is approx 5' and we also suggested her to lower the inside service pipe."
Mr. Patwari disputes that there is no direct supply line to his client's premises, as well as that she is drawing water from the stand post.
Extract from said note dated 21st December, 2019 makes it clear that petitioner is drawing water supply from the stand post. Suggestion given by the Corporation is to lower the pipe from level of stand post water output. On query from Court, petitioner has not been able to demonstrate statement has been made that she has separate water connection. As such, it is clear that an exposed pipe connecting the stand post to petitioner's reservoir might suffer from consequent lack of pressure. In the circumstances, petitioner will either obtain separate water supply or engage technically competent person to advise her on how best to act upon suggestion given by the Corporation.
With above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.