IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 830 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 05/04/2011 IN WPC.10387/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ AIRDALE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, 15/385, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, MARADU, KOCHI-682304, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MATHEW GEORGE. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, THRIPUNITHURA-682301. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682011. MR.M.DINESH, SC FOR KWA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.830 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant to settle the dispute on water bills raised before the appellate authority. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority. 3. The appellant is served with two bills, one an arrear bill and the other regular bill both based on an inspection by the Anti Water Theft Squad. The total demand is for Rs.1,21,000/-. The appellant's counsel submitted that the statutory appellate authority being an Engineer of the Water Authority cannot be expected to render justice impartially. 4. We are unable to agree with this contention because higher authorities hearing appeals are quite matured persons W.A.No.830/2011 -2- familiar with the subject including technical matters and we expect a fair and objective consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority, which is free to decide the matter and will necessarily decide the matter based on law and facts. If the appellant has grievance against the orders of the appellate authority, the appellant is still free to contest the same either before the Permanent Lok Adalat or before any appropriate Court or Forum. We therefore do not want to interfere with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to pursue the appeal i.e. already filed. Even though the appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant is an industrial unit engaged in manufacture of wooden lamp shades, which does not involve any water for the industrial activity, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appellant has not paid any amount for the water consumed for the last 12 years. 5. Considering the above contentions raised, we direct the appellate authority to hear the matter on the appellant depositing Rs.40,000/- as a condition for maintainability of W.A.No.830/2011 -3- the appeal for which the appellant is granted three weeks' time from now. If payment is made as above, the appellate authority will take up the appeal and decide the matter, if necessary after conducting an inspection of the premises and after estimating the probable consumption on a reasonable basis. Orders in the appeal should be issued after hearing the appellant within a period of three months from now. On payment of Rs.40,000/- as above, water connection will be restored to the appellant after installing meter, if there is no meter functioning in the premises. Balance arrears will remain stayed till disposal of the appeal and thereafter recovery will be made based on orders in appeal. Regular bills will be paid by the appellant without default. This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg