IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 1530 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26466/2006 Dated 29/05/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- MRS. INDIRA JOB, VEENUS RUBBER INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA FOR R2 GP SMT.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J -------------------------------- W.A.1530/2007 ----------------------------- Dated this 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy (Ag.C.J.) Appellant/petitioner is the proprietress of Veenus Rubber Industries, which is manufacturing rubber powder for Havai Chappals. Second respondent issued a notice dated 12.7.2002 to the appellant to pay water charges of Rs.65,079/- within seven days, otherwise, supply of water will be cut off. It is stated that the appellant/petitioner was not consuming any water supplied by the second respondent or even the pipe line and water meter was not there. Appellant has repeatedly submitted that she was not consuming any water supplied by the second respondent for the last nine years. She has made a request to the second respondent to inspect the premises and do the needful in this regard. In the meanwhile, the appellant was served with demand notice dated 18.9.2006, demanding payment of an amount of Rs.1,48,990/-. Appellant contended that no amount is due to the Water Authority and the assessment itself was wrong. To Ext.P2 disconnection advice, appellant submitted Ext.P3 objection. It is further stated that even W.A.1530/2007 2 if the bill is correct it is time barred. None of the contentions by the petitioner were considered by the Authority. In the above circumstances, recovery proceedings are set aside. We direct the second respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer, to consider Ext.P3 objection and pass an order considering the contentions of the petitioner that there was no water supply. If necessary an inspection can be conducted in the premises. The question whether the bill is time barred also should be considered by the second respondent. This shall be done with notice to the appellant/petitioner. Fresh order should be passed by the second respondent, after hearing the parties. Writ petition is disposed of as above. J.B.KOSHY, Acting Chief Justice V.GIRI, Judge mrcs //true copy// P.A. to Judge