IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10880 of 2005(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW.K.X. ALIAS MATHAI KUNJU, S/O.XAVIER, KOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10880 of 2005 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.8.2004 EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9.9.2004 (True copy) P.A To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).10880/2005 .............................................. Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 invoice, issued by the Water Authority on 16.8.2004 demanding a total sum of Rs.93,046/- from him. A reading of the invoice shows that out of Rs.93,046/-, an amount of Rs.88,722/0 is towards the dues upto May 2004. An amount of Rs.3584/- is also demanded towards fine. The balance amount is demanded towards the dues for the period June-July, 2004. The contention of the petitioner is that the amount demanded from him is barred by limitation and therefore, the impugned demand is illegal. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the basis of the instructions obtained by him, submits that the amount demanded includes the water charges due for the period from 1993 to 2001 and thereafter. Admittedly, the law of limitation permits recovery of dues, which are not time barred in terms of the provisions contained in the Limitation Act. If that be so, any debt W.P.(C).10880/2005 2 due beyond the past period of three years from the date on which the invoice has been issued, has become time barred and if so, such dues cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, to the extent, such time barred amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner, the impugned demand is illegal. In that view of the matter, necessarily, the invoice will have to be set aside and a fresh one excluding time barred dues, will have to be issued. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P1 and leaving it open to the petitioner to issue a fresh demand notice to the petitioner, requiring him to pay amounts due for a period of three years prior to 16.8.2004, when Ext.P1 demand was issued. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs