IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9959 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- U.MADHUSOODANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, JAYA PAINTS, 1/4A, KANIYAVALLY, KUREEKKAD, CHOTTANIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. R1 ANDS R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R3 BY ADV. M. DINESH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9959 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the recovery steps taken at the instance of the first respondent for realisation of the water charges from the petitioner. The specific case put forth in the Writ Petition is that the water connection was provided to the petitioner only in 2003 , though no water was available, which made the petitioner to file a complaint in the year 2005 as borne by Ext. P2. In spite of this a sum of Rs. 7017/- has been demanded as arrears for the period from December 2001 till 2005 as per Ext.P1, which was followed by recovery notice issued in January, 2010 as borne by Ext .P3, wherein a total sum of Rs.15,102/- has been demanded with further interest and collection charges. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits on instruction that the connection was W.P.(C) No. 9959 OF 2010 2 actually provided in December 2001 and that the amount demanded is only the minimum charge required to have maintained the connection and it was because of the default on the part of the petitioner in clearing the due amount on time that the amount got mounted by way of interest as well. In any view of the matter, if the petitioner is aggrieved of in any manner, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal as provided under the Statute before the concerned Executive Engineer. Hence no interference is warranted in the Writ Petition. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of 'Rs. Five Thousand' on or before 31.03.2010 and if so advised, he can prefer an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the Statute within two weeks thereafter. On filing any such appeal, the same shall be caused to be considered by the concerned authority and appropriate orders shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner . This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . It is made clear W.P.(C) No. 9959 OF 2010 3 that the liability of the petitioner to satisfy the balance amount will depend upon the outcome of the appeal sought to be filed by the petitioner. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk