nThe Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) stopped the supply of water to a part of a housing complex on the basis of a complaint to the Water Lok Adalat, alleging that the occupants were not the owners of the premises. When the order was challenged before the high court, the Board contended that the petitioners had failed to produce a copy of the title deed, essential for applying for water supply. Ordering reconnection, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that as per the Board Act, any owner or occupier of a building was entitled to water supply. In this case, since the supply was ensured 12 years ago, it could be stopped only if bills were not paid or if there was a violation of a Board order (Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs HMWSSB).
In a case concerning adulteration of fertilisers, the lower court acquitted the accused because all witnesses could not be produced. Nor was the evidence produced adequate to establish the charge. The state appealed before the high court, which observed that none of the witnesses available stated anything against the accused. The plea was rejected (the state of Orissa vs Sahadeb Naik).
The president of the parents-teachers association of a government school filed a petition against a government-aided school for allowing a commercial hoarding to be put up on the school premises. She contended that the Education Act prohibited such action because it amounted to ‘alienation’ of government property. The Kerala High Court held that although Section 6 of the Act allowed alienation in aided schools with prior permission, a blanket permission would affect children’s well-being. Dismissing the school’s appeal, the division bench held that the welfare of children should prevail over monetary considerations (Kamaladevi vs Gopalakrishnan).
SOLON
