IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15285 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.J.ANTONY, VATTAVAYALIL HOUSE, PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR. VIJU ABRAHAM MR. DINNY THOMAS MS. M.SRUTHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STAE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALA-686575. BY ADV. MR. M.DINESH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 15285 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26.12.1997 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.01.2009 EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.03.2010 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.04.2010 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.04.2010 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 15285 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th July , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession, has approached this Court, challenging the action of the Water Authority, in having issued Ext. P2 bill dated 29.01.2009, demanding a sum of Rs. 41,188/- to be satisfied, lest, it should attract penal interest at the rate of 24 % per month, to be recovered by way of revenue recovery proceedings. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the building in question was being put in use as advocate's office. But later, it was locked out and the petitioner shifted the office to a better premises as early as in the year 1994. Even though, the petitioner intimated the said fact to the Water Authority with a request for disconnection of the water supply, no disconnection was effected. On a fine morning on 26.12.1997, the petitioner was served with Ext. P1 notice demanding a sum of Rs. 3,909/- as the alleged dues for the period in question, to be satisfied within 7 days, lest, the water supply should be disconnected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, eventhough the petitioner substantiated the factual position before the concerned authorities, no remedial action was actually taken and the W.P. (C) No. 15285 of 2011 : 2 : petitioner was given to understand that the said authorities were satisfied with the actual facts and figures. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext. P4 dated 06.04.2010, a communication sent by the 4th respondent to the Executive Engineer of the Water Authority, reporting that, on enquiry, it was revealed that the office of the petitioner had already been shifted from the building; that the same was locked out and the office was not functioning ever since 1994. However, in spite of this, the very same authority issued Ext. P2 dated 29.01.2009, demanding a sum of Rs. 41,188/- , stating that, water connection was actually disconnected only on 19.05.2005. The petitioner challenges the course pursued by the respondents on many a ground. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents as well, who sought to justify the proceedings, with reference to the counter affidavit filed in this regard, also producing a copy of the calculation statement as borne by Ext. R4 (a). The correct factual position has been sought to be highlighted by the petitioner by filing reply affidavit as well. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the case of the petitioner as to the closing of the office and shifting the same from the concerned building stands admitted by the 4th respondent, vide Ext. W.P. (C) No. 15285 of 2011 : 3 : P4. Even assuming that the petitioner had not communicated the position in 1994, the respondents having issued Ext. P1 dated 26.12.1997 demanding a sum of Rs. 3,909/- as the arrears till date so as to avoid disconnection, if not remitted within 7 days, the liability cannot be more than the said extent as on that date. It was always open for the concerned respondent to have effected the disconnection, if the amount demanded in Ext. P1 was not satisfied by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that there is no justification on part of the respondents for having protracted the matter, without taking timely action till the alleged disconnection stated as effected on 19.05.2005, followed by Ext. P2 notice dated 29.01.2009 issued even four years thereafter demanding an amount of Rs. 41,188/- including interest till date; @ 14.5 % 5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the liability on the part of the petitioner has to be limited to the amount shown in Ext. P1, with interest at the rate of 14.5 % (the rate of interest as mentioned in Ext. P4), which shall be satisfied by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, if any failure is resulted from the part of the petitioner in this regard, the respondents will be free to proceed with the steps for W.P. (C) No. 15285 of 2011 : 4 : recovery of the due amount , resorting to appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd