IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8079 of 2007(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- PAUL VARGHESE, S/O A.P.VARGHESE, VIII/115A, ANTHIKADU HOUSE, ELOOR SOUTH, UDYOGAMANDAL. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M. DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2/04/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8079 /2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD UNDRE CONSUMER NO.ELR2685/D ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT SCHEDULED UNDER CONSUMER NO. ELR 2685/D ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSUMER BILL NO. KWA/ELR/JUNE/2006/-55 DATED 31/5/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF METER READINGS AND ADJUSTMENT BILL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE pac P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8079 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 demand made by the respondent Water Authority seeking to realise the arrears stated as due from him. The case of the petitioner is that the meter was faulty and no monthly bills were being issued for quite long. It is also stated that the revision of rates stated as made by the Water Authority with effect from 05.07.2000 was also made without proper notice to the petitioner. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit as to the actual facts and figures in the light of the relevant provisions of law, stating that it is the duty of the petitioner to remit the amounts payable to the Water Authority and that non-receipt of the bills can never be cited as a reason to avoid the payment. Even otherwise, it has been admitted by the petitioner in para 3 of the writ petition that he remitted the water charges only upto the year 2000. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the calculation shown in Ext.P3 is perfectly in order. It is W.P.(C) No.8079 of 2007 2 also pointed out by the learned counsel that the actual calculation has been given in Ext.R2 produced along with counter affidavit and that the petitioner is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.10,742/- as on 31.03.2007, with further liability to clear the arrears till date. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by him pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 12.03.2007. But this Court does not find any tenable ground to entertain the writ petition as to the challenge raised by the petitioner against the alleged lapse on the part of the respondents, more so when the petitioner confines the relief to have a reasonable time for remitting the the balance amount lying in arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, pursuant to the interim order, the respondents have provided reconnection and that the meter is working. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to wipe off the outstanding liability as demanded by the respondents vide Ext.P3 and the subsequent arrears, if any, by way of three equal monthly instalments commencing W.P.(C) No.8079 of 2007 3 from May, 2009, on which event, the petitioner shall continue to enjoy the benefit of the interim order, which is hereby made absolute. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE pac