IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1123 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAFIYA W/O.MEDATTIL MOOSA, 49 YEARS, THIRUVEGAPPURA, POST KAIPPURAM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H.SUB DIVISION, SHORANUR -679 121 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY)TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM-679 101 R1 & R2 BY ADV.SMT.AMBIKA DEVI R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STS C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1123 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against revenue recovery steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P4 and P5 notices. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears of water charges due to the 1st respondent. Contention of the petitioner is that the property wherein the water connection was provided, has already been assigned to a third person, with effect from 13.6.2000, and that the said person is in enjoyment of the connection in question. It is further stated that the person to whom the assignment was made, namely Smt.Zeenath had expired on 2.8.2010 and thereafter her family members are in occupation of the premises. Contention of the petitioner is that since the property was assigned as early as in the year 2000 the petitioner is not liable for payment of the amounts now demanded. 2. On the other hand, standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner continues to be W.P.(C).1123/11 -2- the subscriber and that neither the petitioner nor the assignee has taken any steps to effect change of the consumership. 3. Considering the provisions contained in the Kerala Water Authority Water Supply Regulations, there is an effective remedy available to the petitioner to raise the disputes regarding the demand, before the Executive Engineer concerned. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the dispute need not be adjudicated in this writ petition, which may not be possible since various factual aspects need be considered. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the appellate authority. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file appeal as provided under the Regulations before the competent authority, the Executive Engineer of the PH Division concerned, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such appeal is filed, the competent authority shall consider the same and dispose of on merits, after issuing notice to the assignee and the petitioner and after considering the relevant aspects on the basis of Ext.P4 and P5. 5. If any appeal as directed above is filed before the competent authority within the time stipulated as above, the W.P.(C).1123/11 -3- same shall be disposed of as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such appeal. 6. Till such time the appeal is disposed of as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) within one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb