IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16978 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.M.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, GEENA FAST FOOD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 30. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R R), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. ADV.M.DNIESH, SC. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 16978/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.16.4.07. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.18.4.07. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1. COPY OF THE DETAILS OF METER READINGS. R1A. COPY OF THE REGISTER LETTER DTD.19.4.06. R1B. COPY OF THE REQUISITION TO DIST. COLLECTOR FOR REVENUE RECOVERY. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.16978 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of water supplied by the Kerala Water Authority. Water connection was given to the petitioner in the business premises of the petitioner, where he was conducting a hotel. The connection was obtained in the year 1996. The petitioner's contention is that he closed the hotel in 2002 and applied for disconnection of the water supply and accordingly, the water connection was disconnected in the year 2003. However, the petitioner was served with a notice by the 2nd respondent demanding arrears of water charges for the period from 2002 to 2006. Although the petitioner objected to the same, again notice was issued. Now the petitioner has been served with Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice seeking to recover an amount of Rs.74,157/- towards water charges. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, the demand is for the period during which he did not consume any water in so far as he had closed his hotel in 2002 and the water connection was disconnected in the year 2003. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to call for the records leading upto Exhibit P1, and quash the same. ii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or other writ or direction directing the 2 2nd respondent to consider and take appropriate steps on Exhibit P2 in accordance with law forthwith.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents disputing every contention of the petitioner. It is submitted that after obtaining connection in 1996, the petitioner never paid any amount towards water charges. According to them, the 1st respondent never received any application from the petitioner for disconnection either in 2002 or in 2003. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the water connection was disconnected due to non-payment of water charges, on 30.3.2005. According to the 1st respondent, the demand now made is for water charges for the period from 1996 to 2005. The total arrears of water charges is Rs.26,903/- and the balance are service charges, fine, postage charges and disconnection charges is the submission made by the respondents. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Although in Ground C of the writ petition the petitioner has made a bald statement that the petitioner paid all arrears till the date of disconnection, the petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence in support of that contention. The petitioner has also not chosen to file any reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has categorically stated that the petitioner never paid any water charges after obtaining connection in 1996. The contention of the petitioner is that the demand for water 3 charges is for the period from 2002 to 2005, which is also disputed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent submits that the demand is for the period from 1996 to 2005. In the absence of any denial of the statement in the counter affidavit filing a reply affidavit, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner seeks waiver of the penal charges also. Regulation 14 of the Water Supply Regulations provides thus: “14. Fine on default of payments of water charges and dues etc.- (a) The charges due for the water consumed in a month, subject to the minimum charge and other levies fixed by the Authority vide Sections 31 and 33 of the Act as computed in the manner indicated in regulation 13 or in clauses (d) and (e) of regulation 17 of these Regulations shall be paid by the owner or occupier of the premises to the Assistant Executive or any other officer or agency authorised by the Authority on or before the date indicated in the bills or the slab cards, as the case may be. (b) A fine amounting to Rs.5.00/month in respect of domestic connections and 2% of the outstanding charges for every month in respect of non domestic connections shall be levied by the Authority from consumers who fail to pay the water charges on or before the dates indicated in the bills or the slab cards served. For the purpose of this clause a month shall be taken as 30 days and fractions of a month shall be treated as a full month. In view of the said provision I do not think that penal charges can be waived, since the same is statutory and the default in payment has been found against the petitioner. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 4