IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3782 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ MRS.KAMALA UNNI,KAVITHA,29/13,TOC.H SCHOOL ROAD,JANATHA , VYTTILA,KOCHI-19. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, EROOR SOUTH,TRIPUNITHURA 682 306. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD PO,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,KANAYANNUR TALUK, OFFICE,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-11. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VILLAGE OFFICE, POONITHURA. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.DINESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.3782 of 2011-W. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of Exts.P1 & P2 notices for realising amounts due to the first respondent towards water charges, is under challenge nin this writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is that, before initiating the revenue recovery steps, the petitioner was not served with any demand and even in Exts.P1 & P2 notices the details regarding arrears was not revealed. According to the petitioner, the premises of the industrial unit wherein the connection was provided, was vacated by the petitioner in the year 1993 and that the demand pertains to periods after the industry become defunct. 2. It is evident from Ext.P5 that, on the basis of the request made by the petitioner for furnishing information under the Right to Information Act, the first respondent had WP(C).No.3782 of 2011-W. 2 informed that the water connection stands in the name of the petitioner and the same was disconnected only in the year 2006. It is further stated that the petitioner has not applied for disconnection and therefore he is liable for payment of the amount demanded. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. It is contended that as long as the petitioner is the consumer with respect to the connection, he could not escape from the liability for paying the amount due. 4. Considering the fact that there is an effective remedy provided under the Kerala Water Authority Water Supply Regulations [Regulation No.17(d)], I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the authority concerned to redress grievance if any regarding correctness of the demand. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the authority under Regulation No.17(d), with WP(C).No.3782 of 2011-W. 3 appropriate petition raising dispute if any regarding correctness of the demand. If any such petition is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the matter after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 6. Till such time the authority concerned takes a decision on the matter, coercive steps of recovery on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 notices shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits a sum of ` 20,000/- within one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-