IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5036 of 2010(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.T.PRASANNA, W/O.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, "PRASANTH", CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERRY. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUTHURUTHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH SUB DIVISION, WADAKKANCHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R3 BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5036 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Dispute pertains to payment of water charges due to the 3rd respondent. The property wherein the connection was installed was purchased by the petitioner only on 7.7.1989, by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioner, the consumership stands in the name of the vendor of the property Sri.A.Mayin. It is the case of the petitioner that after assignment of the property she has not used the connection in question and there was no consumption. On the other hand the 3rd respondent contended that there was unauthorised extraction of water detected after the property was transferred into the name of the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this court that there existed some dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, which was subject matter of complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thrissur. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd W.P.(C).5036/10 -2- respondent it is stated that the original consumer had informed the 3rd respondent about the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner, in the year 2009. 2. Considering the rival contentions I am of the view that, it is basically a question as to who is liable for payment of arrears of water charges. I take note of the fact that the Kerala Water Authority Water Supply Regulations provides a remedy by way of appeal against any demand made. Therefore, interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is directed to approach the appellate authority who is the Executive Engineer, PH Division, Thrissur, with an appeal under the above said Regulation. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal against the demand now raised before the competent authority, the Executive Engineer, PH Division, Thrissur, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such appeal is filed before the above said authority, the same shall be considered and disposed of after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the previous owner of the property, who is the consumer. A decision on the appeal shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such appeal. W.P.(C).5036/10 -3- 4. The recovery steps now being pursued on the basis of Ext.P4 & P5 shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) within one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb