IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20396 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ASHRAF N.E.,S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY NEERANGAL HOUSE, RAJAGIRI P.O. KOCHI 683 104 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY TRIVANDRUM, RERPESENTED BY ITS MANAGING AUTHORITY 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.M.DINESH, SC, WATER AUTHORITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20396 OF 2008 C ==================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner impugns Ext.P2 recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents for realisation of Rs.56,375/- and other charges. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the water connection availed of by the petitioner was surrendered way back in 1998. It is his contention that the property itself has been alienated long ago. 2. On the other hand, on instructions, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the connection availed of was a non domestic connection and that the premises in question was leased out by the petitioner for a hotel. It is also his contention that there is absolutely no record in the office of the respondents to show that the water connection availed of has been disconnected. According to him, the petitioner had committed default in paying the amount and it was to realise the amount due with interest that recovery proceedings are initiated. 3. In view of the disputed questions of fact , I feel this court will not be in a position to adjudicate the rival claims of the parties. In my WPC 20396/08 :2 : view, the remedy that is available to the petitioner is to avail of the appellate remedy that is provided in Clause 17(B) of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations framed by the respondents. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far they have not been served any demand and that the revenue recovery notice is the first communication that they have received demanding payment. As rightly pointed out, in the absence of a demand as stated, he will not be able to pursue that remedy. In order to take care of this situation, counsel for the Water Authority offers that a demand will be served on the petitioner on the production of a copy of this judgment before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kalamasserry and it is directed accordingly. 5. In view of the above, it is also directed that in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy as stated above, if the petitioner files an appeal within 3 weeks from today, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 notice under the Revenue Recovery Act will be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp