IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20108 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.GOPALAN,AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.NILAMBI, 30/166 E, PERUMPADAPPU GARADEN'S, MUKKOTTIL TEMPLE ROAD, POONITHURA, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN SMT.T.DHANYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALLIMUKKU,KOCHI-15. ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20108 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of water from the 1st respondent. Since the bimonthly water tariff of the petitioner was fixed at a high rate, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the building in question is vacant from 1- 3-2009 onwards and there is no water consumption from the said date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be forced to pay the bimonthly charges at the rates fixed years ago, is his contention. But, despite a request made in that behalf for re-fixing the bimonthly charges, the same is not being revised and the petitioner is being forced to pay at the higher rate, is the grievance of the petitioner. 2. At the time of admitting the writ petition, I passed an interim order on 29-6-2010 as follows: “The petitioner shall keep his premises open for inspection by the 2nd respondent on 5-7-2009. On that date, the 2nd respondent shall cause a reading of the meter of the petitioner taken, so as to enable him to re-fix the average consumption for the purpose of fixation of bimonthly fixed charges.” Pursuant thereto, a statement has been filed by the standing counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, which reads as follows: “As per court order dated 29.6.2010 in this writ petition, 2nd respondent had inspected the premises of the petitioner and the meter reading as on 06.07.10. As per Consumer Personal Ledger The petitioner fixed new meter on 20.7.09. : 0 Water meter reading on II/09 : 2 KL Water meter reading on 3/10 : 27 KL W.P.C. No. 20108/2010. -: 2 :- Reading taken as per the direction : 40 KL The meter reading status were under observation. Now the observation status is cancelled and an excess amount of Rs. 2212/- is in the credit of the petitioner as on 4/10. The PIC rate is Rs. 22/- per month. Future bills will be issued on the basis of the bimonthly meter reading take from the water meter fixed in the premises of the consumer.” The petitioner is satisfied with the action taken by the respondents in the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay water charges in future in accordance with the amount now re-fixed and the balance lying in the credit of the petitioner as stated in the statement shall be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner for water charges. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.