IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35112 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.CHOICE TOWERS RESIDENTS SOCIETY, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, COCHIN-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.SEBASTIAN JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS, SUB DIVISION, COCHIN-16. ADV. SRI. M. DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10.7.2004 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.3.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.4.2005 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BILL DTED 23.5.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 19623 OF 2005 EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3588/WSC-3/2000/IR. D. DATED 28.4.2000 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35112 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT W.P.C. is filed challenging Ext.P6 order whereby water authority declined petitioner's claim for change of tariff from commercial to domestic. Petitioner is admittedly a society which has an independent water connection in the flat complex wherein another connection is given for residential purpose for the residents together. According to the petitioner, water received in the connection given to members for residential purpose is inadequate and therefore society is supplying water to make up for their requirement and so much so society should be charged at domestic tariff. Society certainly cannot claim connection as one for domestic purpose because connection given to residential houses only can be treated as domestic connection. The fact that society supplies water for the residential purpose to the members will not entitle it to claim the benefit of domestic tariff. Therefore I do not find anything wrong in the water authority declining domestic tariff to the society for the water connection given to it. W.P.C. is therefore dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2