IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6301 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- R.HARIHARAN, PALLISSERY MADHOM EAST, SRI.RAMA TEMPLE, TRIPUNITHURA 682 301. BY ADV. MR. R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION,THRIPUNITHURA. ADV. MR. M.DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 6301 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings being pursued at the instance of the respondents to realize a sum of nearly Rs.7910/- plus interest and collection charges, as shown in Ext.P10 notice, issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court because of the fact that the petitioner was never provided with even a single drop of water. Despite this, bills were being raised to satisfy the amounts and finally disconnection was effected in the year, 2009 as borne by Ext.P9 and quite after a long time Ext.P10 demand notice has been issued, which is stated as not correct or sustainable under any circumstances. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, with reference to the statement filed before this court, submits that the petitioner was in arrears right from the beginning as early (as from 1989 itself) and in spite of issuance of several notices, the liability was not cleared, which led to the disconnection ordered vide Ext.P9. The learned standing counsel also submits that the petitioner never chose to challenge the steps taken by the respondents earlier, nor did he protest against the disconnection of the water connection. W.P. (C) No. 6301 of 2010 : 2 : 4. Going by the materials on record, it is very evident that Ext.P8 notice was issued on 10.01.2007, showing the arrears due to be satisfied by the petitioner, also giving an opportunity to file objection, if any within 10 days. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that, no objection whatsoever was filed by the petitioner in response to Ext.P8 and that the petitioner has no such case in the Writ Petition. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the grounds raised by the petitioner against the bills issued by the respondents in respect of the water charges are not liable to be considered and acted upon. Hence, interference is declined. The petitioner is however given one month's time to clear the entire liability as shown in Ext.P10. The respondent shall keep further proceedings pending till such time and if the petitioner does not clear the liability within time, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd