IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 2799 of 2003(G) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- GEORGE KALLIATH, S/O.LATE JACOB KALLIATH, KALLIATH AUTOMOBILES LTD., CHEMBUKAVU, TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.J.JULIAN XAVIER MR.RAJESH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 2799/2003-G ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.4999/2003 IN O.P. NO. 2799/2003 DISMISSED 02/06/2009. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/09/2002 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INVOICES DATED 05/09/2002, 05/07/2002, 06/05/2002 AND 07/03/2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/09/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/09/2002 IN O.P. NO. 27601/2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/01/2003. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 2799 OF 2003 (G) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P1, a demand issued on 10/9/2002 claiming an amount of Rs.58,103 from the petitioner for the period upto February, 2001. Subsequently, on the directions issued by this Court in OP No.27601/02, Exts.P5 and P6 were issued to the petitioner containing the details of the amount demanded and the total amount demanded therein is Rs.54,350/-. Ext.P6 statement show that the demand is for the period from 1991 to February, 2001. 2. Admittedly, demand for arrears was made for the first time by Ext.P1 dated 10/9/2002 and the period covered is 1991 to February, 2001. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained in Section 539 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, the Municipality cannot recover any due for the period prior to three years of the demand. 3. Although the counsel for the respondent Municipality attempted to sustain the amount demanded, I do not think there is any merit in the contention raised. The impact of Section 539 of OP No.2799/03 :2 : the Municipalities Act is clear that any amount due for the period beyond three years is hit by limitation. If that be so, the amount demanded certainly calls for revision in terms of the said provision. 4. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That in view of the provisions contained in Section 539 of the Municipalities Act and as the demand for the first time was made only by Ext.P1 dated 10/9/2002, it is directed that the respondents shall revise the demand for arrears, if any, due from the petitioner, by demanding the amount for the three years immediately preceding 10/9/2002 when Ext.P1 was issued. (2) Once such revision is effected, the Municipality shall appropriate Rs.15,000/- remitted by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 10/6/2003. (3) On such appropriation, if any amount is still due, it will be open to the Municipality to demand the same from the petitioner and if the amount remitted is in excess of what is actually due, the same shall be appropriated towards the future bills of the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp