IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 1011 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- A.RAMA PRABHU,ADVOCATE,'AYODHYA', JEW STREET,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI - 682035. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION,PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION,PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16. SC SRI. M. DINESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.1011 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P5 and P7 and seeks a stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 including recovery of the amount mentioned therein. 2. Petitioner had, at his residential premises bearing Door No.40/5497, a water connection with Consumer No.40/693/D. It is stated that despite the fact that there was no supply or consumption, he was issued Ext.P1, on 28.3.1994, stating that for arrears of Rs.405/- the water connection will be discontinued. Admittedly, payment was not made and thereafter he was issued in Ext.P2 dated 31.3.2002 a consumer bill demanding an amount of Rs.5409/-. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the meter at the premises was not working. On receipt of Ext.P2, petitioner replied by Ext.P3 referring to Ext.P1 and contending that WP(c).No.1011/09 2 the water connection is already disconnected and therefore he has no liability to pay the amount. 3. Consequently, on 1.11.2008 the respondents issued Ext.P5, another disconnection advice, informing the petitioner that disconnection of water supply may be effected for non- payment of water charges of Rs.9791/-. Then again by Ext.P6, petitioner stated that upon receipt of Ext.P2 he had objected by filing Ext.P3 and that since 1994, there has not been any supply in the premises. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P1 since water supply was disconnected way back in 1994 there is no question of making any further payment and that is replied by the water authority in Ext.P7 stating that, the petitioner had not made any valid application for disconnection of the water connection, that the connection is still maintained and that the bills were issued on the basis of average consumption. It is challenging Ext.P7 the present writ petition is filed. WP(c).No.1011/09 3 4. Counsel for the water authority submits that a proper application as specified in the Water Supply Regulations was never made by the petitioner for disconnection. It is also his case that the consumer had liability to pay the amount. It is stated that since the meter was not working, taking the minimum average consumption of 20 kl, the bills were issued to the petitioner. Finally, he also submits that in terms of clause 17-D of the Water Supply Regulations, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, petitioner's remedy lies before the appellate authority by filing an appeal. 5. As far as the theory of disconnection canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, admittedly the petitioner has not made any application as required in terms of the Regulations. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the water authority for not having disconnected the water supply pursuant to Ext.P3. This is all the more in the context of the averment made by the counsel for the water authority, that Ext.P1 was only an intimation that WP(c).No.1011/09 4 disconnection may be effected for non-payment. 6. True the counsel for the petitioner referred to clause 14(c) of the Regulations and contended that if there is nonpayment respondents have power to discontinue water supply. Though there is a power of disconnection as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, even if it is not exercised that does not mean that the consumer is exonerated of his liability to pay the amount. 7. Admittedly in this case, the connection has not been disconnected and what is now demanded is on the basis of average consumption, for the reason that the meter was not worked. In these circumstances, what emerges is the quantification of the exact liability which can be done only in an appeal which the petitioner may file in terms of Clause 17- D of the regulations. Although the counsel for the petitioner contended that in a case of this nature, there is no appellate remedy, I do not think that I should labour much on that issue. This is for the reason that the respondents themselves have WP(c).No.1011/09 5 said that there is a right of appeal and hence, the petitioner, need not have any apprehension about its maintainability. Without prejudice to that right, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.1011/09 6