IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15215 of 2007(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ N. MOHANAN, AGED. 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, H.NO.IV/293, ILLIKKAT HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682011. BY SRI. DINESH STANDING COUNSEL - R1 AND R2 SRI. DILIP MOHAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER-R.3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15215 of 2007(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF ARREAR BILL DATED 30.04.2004 FOR RS. 33141/- ISSUED TO THE COMPLAINANT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.06.2004 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.06.2004 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DISCONNECTION ADVICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. H C(R) 401/2005 DATED 05.05.2006 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ON 08.09.2006 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. R11 770/05-06 DATED 29.09.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.12.2006 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C) NO. 27OF 2006. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.02.2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 05.02.2007. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.02.2007 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.02.2007 OF THE PETITIONER WITH HIS OBJECTIONS SENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 173/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. EXT. P15: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. WP(C).No. 15215 of 2007(J) EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS. 25,000/- RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 15215 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has a water connection. In respect of the said water connection, the respondents have issued arrear bill and initiated proceedings for recovery of the same. There was earlier litigation between the parties in respect of the same, which resulted in Ext.P8 judgment, whereby, the respondents had been directed to recompute the amounts as directed therein. Thereafter, fresh bills have been issued to the petitioner in respect of which also the petitioner is aggrieved. The petitioner has filed a consumer complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, challenging the demand for arrears of water charges as C.C No. 173 of 2007. The petitioner filed this writ petition, when coercive proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, while the complaint was pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The petitioner submits that while the consumer complaint is pending, it is unjust to proceed against the petitioner. W.P(C) No. 15215 of 2007 -2- 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the Standing counsel for the water authority. The Standing Counsel would vehemently oppose the contentions of the petitioner. According to him, the water charges have been correctly assessed and therefore the petitioner is bound to pay the same. 3. At the time of admission, this court granted an interim stay against recovery vide Ext.P15, for six weeks on the petitioner remitting Rs.25,000/- within three weeks. It is submitted that the said amount has already been paid. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that evidence has been taken in the complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the matter is reserved for orders. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that until the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pronounces orders in C.C. No. 173/2007, filed by the petitioner, no further proceedings shall be initiated for recovery of the disputed amounts. Further proceedings by the respondents shall be only in accordance with the orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, subject to the right of either party to challenge the order of the Forum. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs