IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29534 of 2010 (N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SHAHUL HAMEED C.A. 40/5742, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 016. 3. THE TAHSILDAR(RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. R1 & R2 BY SRI.M.DINESH, SC. KWA. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, BINOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 29534 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is approaching this Court aggrieved by the steps initiated against him under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on issuing Ext.P2 notice. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears of water charges due to respondents 1 and 2. In Ext.P1 bill issued in July 2004, an amount of more than Rs.28,000/- was demanded. In Ext.P2 revenue recovery notice a sum of Rs.1,12,190/- is demanded as arrears. According to the petitioner he has got serious dispute regarding the liability, which is under demand. It is stated that the supply in question stood disconnected from the year 2004 onwards and the demand now made pertains huge amount of interest calculated as well as water charges imposed for periods after disconnection, which is not actually due. 2. Pursuant to an interim order issued by this Court on 24.9.2010, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 had W.P(C) No. 29534 of 2010-N 2 brought to my notice that the petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy to raise dispute against correctness of the demand by filing appeal as provided under Section 17D of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations. I am of the opinion that the dispute now raised against the demand can be adjudicated before the appropriate authority invoking the above remedy which is more efficacious. 3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. If the petitioner files an appeal as stated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent shall consider and dispose of the same after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such appeal. 4. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal, further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 notice shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months from today. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab