IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25665 of 2006(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MARY ROSLY @ BABY MATHEW, W/O. LATE M.X. MATHEW, PROPRIETOR, TRIPPUNITHURA TOURIST HOME, TRIPPUNITHURA. BY ADVS.MR.C.P.RAVIKUMAR MR.R.DIVAKARAN MR.BINOI GEORGE (CHERUKARA) MR.VINUCHAND MR.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TRIPPUNITHURA. 4. TRIPUNTHURA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIPUNITHURA. BY MR.M.DINESH, SC, WATER AUTHORITY BY ADV. MR.V.M.KURIAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25665/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE FINAL NOTICE ISUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 1.9.2000. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 4.8.01. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 24.8.01. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 7.11.02. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 12.9.03. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSEUD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 1.12.04. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 27.4.05. P9:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 8.-5. P10:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 24.8.05. P11:SERIES :- COPIES OF THE SOME OF THE WATER BILLS. P12:- COPY OF THE DUPLICATE WATER METER CARD ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE METER BEARING NO.59231 FOR THE PETITIONER'S CONSUMER NO.T.1160. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1:- COPY OF THE CONSUMER LEDGER, KWA . R1(a):- COPY OF THE REQUEST OF SRI.M.X.MATHEW. R1(b):- COPY OF THE LETTERS DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO ATTEND OFFICES FOR SETTLING THE CASE. R1(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 1.8.05 SENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.25665 OF 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The petitioner's husband, Late. Sri.M.X.Mathew was the lessee of a Tourist Home owned by the Tripunithura Muncipality. The building was provided with a water connection, bearing Consumer No:T-1160. After death of the original lessee, the petitioner is conducting the Tourist Home, since the year 2005 onwards. Till the year 1998 the water connection was enjoyed without any dispute. According to the petitioner supply of water became scarce and irregular since the year 1998 onwards which had eventually led to default in payment of water charges. Through Ext.P1 demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's husband was requested to remit an amount of Rs.17,003/- towards arrears of water charges, otherwise it is threatened that the supply will be disconnected. The petitioner's husband submitted objection disputing the demand as well as complaining about the non- availability of the water. The petitioner's husband also disputed correctness of the Water Meter and requested the authority to do the needful for checking the Meter as well as to take steps for ensuring uninterrupted supply. Ext.P2 complaint was forwarded W.P.(C).25665/06 2 to the 3rd respondent along with covering letter issued by the 4th respondent. Since there was no positive response, the petitioner's husband again submitted Exts.P4 and P5 complaints before the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent also issued a letter as evidenced by Ext.P6 highlighting grievances of the petitioner's husband. Since the repeated representations fetched no result he had approached this Court through WP(C) No.32368/04. As per Ext.P7 Judgment this Court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose Ext.P5 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to Ext.P7 Judgment the 3rd respondent conducted a joint inspection at the premises, as evidenced by Ext.P8. Thereafter Ext.P9 letter was issued to the deceased husband of the petitioner informing that the Bill issued based on average consumption need no correction because there is evidence of consumption from the connection till the date of last reading on 5.2.2003. It is mentioned in Ext.P9 that the allegation of total non-supply of water is not correct. Further the 3rd respondent had requested the petitioner's husband to remit the arrears due upto 5/05, amounting to Rs.1,12,039/-. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 the petitioner's husband preferred a revision petition before the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P10. But without considering Ext.P10, W.P.(C).25665/06 3 Ext.P11 series of Bills were issued, the last one of which will indicate that as on 14.8.2006 there is a total arrears of Rs.1,49,703/-. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1, P9 and P11 series of demands. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the availability of water in the connection became scarce since 1998 onwards and subsequently the authorities have disconnected supply alleging non-payment of amounts demanded under Ext.P1. According to her the huge amount of charges calculated on monthly average basis as well as the huge amount of penalty demanded, is highly unsustainable, unreasonable and unjustifiable. Along with the counter affidavit the respondents 1 to 3 had produced a copy of the Consumer Ledger as per Ext.R1, in order to show that the contention of the petitioner that there was total non-availability of award, is not true and correct. On a perusal of Ext.R1 it is noticed that the meter reading is stagnant from 7.3.2002 onwards and no reading is noted after 5.2.2003. This is indicative of the fact that the supply in the water connection stood disconnected since 7.3.2002, is the contention. In support the petitioner had produced Ext.P12, is a duplicate copy of the Water Meter Card, which indicates that on 3.8.2002 and on W.P.(C).25665/06 4 7.10.2002 the meter reading remained stagnant and in the Remarks column it is mentioned as “Disconnection”. Based on the above proof the petitioner raises serious dispute against calculation of arrears and the demand raised. She is also disputing correctness of the monthly average consumption upon which the charge is demanded as well as the demand for the huge amount of penalty. 3. Ext.P10 Revision Petition filed by the deceased husband of the petitioner before the 2nd respondent has not yet been disposed off. It is evident that Regulation 17(d) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply Regulation)1991 provides for an appeal with respect to dispute pertaining to any demand of water charges, to the Executive Engineer. Since the dispute involves various factors relating to quantity of consumption, meter readings, date of disconnection, etc:, I feel that an adjudication of Ext.P10 by the 2nd respondent is necessary to resolve the dispute. Therefore it is only just and proper in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to pursue Ext.P10 before the 2nd respondent, treating the same as an appeal filed under Regulation 17(d). 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P10 treating it as an appeal filed by the petitioner under Regulation 17(d), after W.P.(C).25665/06 5 affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the dispute pertains to the year 2004 the matter may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Since the issue was pending before this Court from the year 2006 onwards and considering the fact that this Court has granted an interim stay against the recovery of the amounts demanded, I direct that further steps for realisation of the amount demanded shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of Ext.P10 by the 2nd respondent as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb