IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2921 of 2006(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P. KOMALAVALLY AMMA, D/O. BHAGEERATHI AMMA, SREEVAS, T.C.10/1882 (OLD TC.10/1765), I.A.S.COLONY ROAD,KAVALLOOR LANE VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.VASAVAN PILLAI SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER WORKS EAST SUB DIVISION, P.T.P. NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,KWA FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE CONSUMER METER CARD GIVEN BY WELLINGDON WATER WORKS, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.6.2001 BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. EXT.P3 COPY OF CERTIFICATE AND CASH BILL IN RESPECT OF METER NO.428714/01 (2 PAGES) EXT.P4 COPY OF THE CONSUMER BILL DATED 6.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. EXT.P5 COPY OF CONSUMER BILL DATED 5.8.2003 ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE CONSUMER BILL DATED 1.10.2003 ISSUED BY KWA EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF CONSUMER BILL DATED 1.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE KWA EXT.P8 COPY OF THE CONSUMER BILL DATED 3.4.2004 ISSUED BY THE KWA EXT.P9 COPY OF THE CONSUMER BILL DATED 3.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE KWA EXT.P10 COPY OF THE DEMAND/DISCONNECTION NOTICE DATED 6.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE KWA EXT.P11 COPY OF THE DEMAND/DISCONNECTION NOTICE DATED 3.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE KWA EXT.P12 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 454/82 DATED 3.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE KWA EXT.P13 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT (5 PAGES) EXT.P14 COPY OF REPLY DATED 20.1.2006 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (ASST. EXE. ENGINEER) TO THE PETITIONER (3 PAGES). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 2921 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging arrears of water charges raised by the Kerala Water Authority through various bills for the period from 9/1988 to 2005. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that petitioner took domestic water connection to his house in the year 1982 from the then Wellingdon Water Works. Under the scheme prevalent at that time, petitioner was entitled to 650 litres of water per day at free of cost and charges were recovered only for consumption over and above the said limit. Petitioner's case is that petitioner never exceeded consumption of 650 litres per day and petitioner would not be liable to pay water charges for any month where consumption is below 650 litres per day. The short point canvassed by the petitioner is that after taking over of water supply by the Water Authority with effect from 1.4.1984, Water Authority will be bound by the same restriction and petitioner is 2 entitled to enjoy the privilege of consuming 650 litres of water per day at free of cost. In the counter affidavit and in the argument of standing counsel, it is contended that no exemption is available for any quantity for any person and the statute does not give any exemption for any old connection, like the one maintained by the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Sections 16(1)(c) and 18(1)(c) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986 and contended that the existing liabilities of the consumers including free allowance are retained under these provisions. On going through these two provisions, I do not find any such statutory benefit conferred or obligation cast on the Water Authority to give free supply of water in terms of the arrangement between the original supplier, namely, Wellingdon Water Works and the consumers. There is nothing in the Act indicating that free supply under the old supply scheme is retained. Therefore petitioner's contention that petitioner is perpetually entitled to 650 litres of water as free allowance for every day is not tenable and the same is rejected. 4. There is some force in the alternate contention of the 3 petitioner that Water Authority has inordinately delayed in serving the bills and in recovering the arrears. Standing counsel for the Water Authority submitted that disconnection was not effected only because it was a domestic connection and Water Authority did not want to harass the people. Even though default entitles the Water Authority to disconnect supply, Water Authority cannot be blamed for not disconnecting the domestic supply because the same will lead to public resentment. This Court under interim order dated 31.1.2006granted stay against disconnection on the petitioner remitting Rs. 5,000/- out of the total demand of Rs. 14,000/-. Petitioner has contention that the demand of Rs. 14,000/- is quite arbitrary. There is no way to find out whether demand of arrears is correct or not. Standing counsel for the Water Authority submitted that for periods meter was not working , only average consumption was billed, and for the period meter was working, actual consumption is billed. In the normal course, this Court should refer the matter for settlement of dispute on water bill in appeal by the Executive Engineer. However, since it is a very old matter, I feel for the sake of finality petitioner can be granted some 4 reduction. I reduce the total bill amount from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- on condition that petitioner will pay balance arrears within six weeks from now. However, if petitioner wants to contest arrears, petitioner is given freedom to deposit full arrears under protest and file appeal. If petitioner adopts the latter course, the reduction granted by this Court will stand forfeited. Petitioner will be liable to pay water charges for the period subsequent to the arrear bill on actual consumption, failing which supply can be disconnected. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 5