IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20434 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MA.AVAHEEDA BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. BABU KARUKAPADATH, ACHANVEETTIL ANE, S.R.M. ROAD, PACHALAM.P.O., KOCHI-12. BY ADV. SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-16. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-16. ADV.M.DINESH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 20434 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a domestic consumer of water from the Kerala Water Authority for the last more than seven years. The petitioner submits that since the petitioner's house is situated at the tail end of the pipe line carrying water, there is a shortage of water supply. According to the petitioner, despite this fact, from the year 2008 onwards, the petitioner has been served with water bills for exorbitant amounts. On 29.3.2008, the petitioner requested for revision of the bills and to adjust the excess amount. But that was not considered and the petitioner continued to get bills for exorbitant amounts. The petitioner used to remit the same under protest and again submitted several representations. Ultimately, in Ext.P4 bill considerable reduction was allowed by the 2nd respondent and she paid Rs.636/- as directed by the 2nd respondent. But even thereafter, the petitioner was issued with bills for exorbitant amount like Rs.18,572/- as evidenced by Ext.P5 bill. Again, by Ext.P6 bill, an amount of Rs.26,658/- was demanded. The petitioner again approached the 2nd respondent and this time, an officer was deputed to inspect the water meter on 5.10.2009. The officer after inspection directed the petitioner to pay w.p.c.20434/2010 2 Rs.5000/- for the time being assuring that the excess amount would be adjusted in the next bills to be issued to her. The petitioner paid the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was told that the meter is faulty. The petitioner again filed Ext.P7 representation before the 2nd respondent requesting for changing the water meter and reduction in the bills. But again, by Ext.P8, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.28,223/-. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent instructed the petitioner to fix an air valve to the water meter, which was also installed. Thereafter, it was found that the meter was recording much lower readings. Despite the same, again, by Ext.P9 bill, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.41,363/-. The petitioner personally met the 2nd respondent and ultimately, reduction was granted in Ext.P9 bill for an amount of Rs.16,771/-. Fed up with the attitude of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 statutory appeal before the 1st respondent. That was also not considered. Again, by Ext.P13, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.17,193/-. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) call for the records leading to Ext.P13; b) issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P13 to the extend it demands Rs.17,193/-; c) direct the 1st respondent, to permit the petitioner to install a new water meter in the place of the faulty water meter; d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, or order or direction directing the respondents to issue fresh revised bill to the w.p.c.20434/2010 3 petitioner after fixing the consumption, on the basis of the actual consumption to be assessed after installing a new meter; e) direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass favourable orders on Ext.P11 appeal, which is pending consideration before him, giving considerable reduction in Ext.P13 treating the average consumption of water as 35.4, as shown in Ext.P13 till readings are taken on a new water meter to be installed.” 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Water Authority also. 3. From the facts narrated it is evident that the meter was not recording the correct consumption of water by the petitioner. Despite the same, instead of correcting the same properly, the respondents have been serving the petitioner with additional bills for huge amounts again and again knowing fully well that they do not represent the correct charges for actual consumption of water by the petitioner. I do not think that this situation should be allowed to continue and therefore, a reasonable course of action should be adopted. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall see that an accurate water meter is installed and that water meter records the actual consumption of water by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall take readings of the consumption of water from that meter for three months. Then, entire bills for the period from 2008 onwards shall be revised in accordance with the average consumption for the three months after the new meter is installed. Excess amounts shall be adjusted against the future w.p.c.20434/2010 4 bills of the petitioner. Till the above process is completed, the petitioner shall be allowed to pay by-monthly water charges of Rs.1000/-. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge