IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 27338 of 2003(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE TRIVANDRUM GOLF CLUB, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY S.N. REGHUCHANDRAN, AGED 47, S/O. V. NARAYANA PILLAI. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOWDIAR SECTION, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOWDIAR SECTION, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R1TOR3 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,KWA FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27338/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1,P1(a),P1(b): True copy of judgment and decree and compromise petition in O.S.324/93. Ext.P2,P2(a),P2(b): True copy of disconnection notices dated 23.9.1999 Ext.P3: True copy of notice dated 27.9.1999 issued by petitioner. Ext.P4: True copy of notice issued by respondent dated 29.9.1999. Ext.P5: True copy of written statement in O.S.Mo.324/93. Ext.P6: True copy of reply dated 1.10.1999 sent by petitioner. Ext.P7: True copy of letter dated 16.10.1999 issued by respondents. Ext.P8: True copy of letter dated 27.10.1999 issued by petitioner. Ext.P9: True copy of letter dated 20.11.99 issued by petitioner. Ext.P10: True copy of letter dated 4.7.2000 issued by petitioner. Ext.P11: True copy of letter dated 9.1.2002 issued by petitioner. Ext.P12: True copy of letter dated 24.7.2002 issued by petitioner. Ext.P13: True copy of letter dated 5.1.2000 issued by petitioner. Ext.P14,P14(a),P14(b),P14(c):True copy of petter 14.8.2002 and Bills dated 13.8.2002 Ext.P15,P15(a) & P15(b):True copy of three bills dated 15.7.2003 issued by 2nd respondent. Ext.P16,P16(a)and P16(b):True copy of three notices dated 16.8.2003 issued by 2nd respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R1(a): True copy of letter dated 14.10.1999 by the Kerala water Authority. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 27338 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Club registered under the provisions of the Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. The Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts.P4, P7, P14, P14(a), P14(b), P14(c), P15, P15(a), P15(b), P16, P16(a) and P16(b) bills issued to the petitioner towards water charges on diverse dates. The core contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid bills are liable to be revised as they were prepared ignoring Ext.P1(b) compromise petition based on which Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P1(a) decree were passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S. No. 324 of 1993. 2. None represented the respondents on 20.8.2009 when the matter was taken up for hearing. Hence, it was included in the disposal list. Same is the situation when the matter is taken up today for disposal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the written statement filed by the respondents in O.S. No. 324 of 1993 (Ext.P5) wherein it was stated that W.P.(C) No.27338/2003 2 the average consumption for KDR GB-44 is 411 kilolitres, for KDR GB- 96 is 445 kilolitres and for KDR GB-757 is 97 kilolitres. These are the three non-domestic water connections in the premises of the petitioner - club. The orders impugned would reveal that the bills towards water charges in respect of the said connections were issued based on different tariff rates. If the bills were prepared in terms of the written statement and in terms of Exts.P1 and P1(a), the demand would not have been for exorbitant amounts, it is submitted. 3. There is no explanation regarding certain apparent discrepancies and how the bills impugned were actually prepared. Though several valid grounds were raised in the Writ Petition, they were not met properly in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Except the bare statement that the bills were prepared in terms of Ext.P1 compromise decree, there is nothing in the counter affidavit to indicate that they were really prepared in terms of ExtsP1 and P1(a). The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be said to be without any substance, especially in the light of Ext.P5. The respondents were bound to honour Exts.P1 and P1(a) and should have prepared the bills in respect of the aforesaid three connections accordingly. W.P.(C) No.27338/2003 3 4. Accordingly, Exts.P4, P7, P14, P14(a), P14(b), P14(c), P15, P15(a), P15(b), P16, P16(a) and P16(b) bills are quashed. However, there will be a direction to the second respondent to prepare and issue revised bills for the period in question in respect of the aforesaid three non- domestic water connections, in terms of Exts.P1 and P1(a), judgment and decree in O.S. No.324 of 1993 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Taking into account the fact that throughout the pendency of the Writ Petition there was an interim direction not to disconnect the water supply, the said arrangement shall continue till the revised bills are prepared and issued to the petitioner in compliance with the directions issued above. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) No.27338/2003 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 27338/2003 JUDGMENT 7th September, 2009 W.P.(C) No.27338/2003 5