IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35257 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.P.LOUZY,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.PAREETH, VELLAPPILLY HOUSE,KANJIRAKKADU KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,P.H. SUB DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR – 658 542. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,HOSPITAL ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-11. 3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,JALA BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURM, PIN – 655 001. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. M. DINESH, S.C, K.W.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35257 of 2010 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P9. Ext.P1 is an additional bill and Ext.P9 is an order passed rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a consumer of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, although payments were made in time, by Ext.P1, additional amount of Rs.24,978/- was demanded. He filed appeal that was rejected by Ext.P9. It is these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. A reading of Ext.P9 shows that the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was faulty and was replaced in October, 2007. It is stated that, since then, the consumption of the petitioner was found to be much higher and it was therefore that the additional bill was served on the petitioner. Ext.P9 shows that the explanation given by the W.P.(C) No.35257/10 : 2 : Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority during the course of hearing of his appeal was not challenged by the petitioner. It is on this basis, the appellate authority also confirmed the matter. In this writ petition, apart from the averments made, petitioner has not produced any material to conclude that the statements made in Ext.P9 are factually incorrect. If that be so, Ext.P9 order deserves to be upheld and I do so. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the financial constraints pointed out and the case of the petitioner that the water connection in question has been disconnected on 19- 11-2010, I feel that the respondents should restore the water supply to the petitioner on the paying of a portion of the amount. Therefore, I direct that the amount now due from the petitioner will be permitted to be paid in five equal monthly instalments and that on the payment of the first instalment, the water connection of the petitioner to his residential premises shall be restored forthwith. W.P.(C) No.35257/10 : 3 : 5. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks