IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12798 of 2007(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PHILOMINA ANTONY, ANTHIKADU HOUSE, ELOOR SOUTH, UDYOGAMANDAL. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY MR. M.DINESH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12798/2007-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE REGARDING THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 04/10/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ADALATH NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 26/02/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 02/04/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF METER READINGS. EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT BILL DTD. 09/05/2007 FOR RS.51,802/-. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. REV 4/ELR/GEN/614/06 DTD. 09/05/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 12798 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's husband started a hotel business sometime in 1996 or 1997. He obtained a water connection for his hotel business. The husband is no more. According to the petitioner, the meter was not working properly and the petitioner's request to replace the meter and to convert the connection as a domestic one has not been looked into for the last 10 years. According to the petitioner, there was no demand from the respondents for water charges and no provisional invoice card has also been issued specifying the amount payable every month. The petitioner alleges that the respondents do not have any records regarding the water consumption made by the petitioner. Now, the petitioner has been served with Exts.P1 and P2 demands for water charges for the period from 1997 onwards. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P2. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent controverting the contentions of the petitioner. It is stated therein that the petitioner has not paid any water charges after 1997. The averment that the petitioner applied for change of category of connection is denied. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that twice the meter was changed since it was found faulty. According to the 2nd respondent, periodic readings regarding the consumption of the water by the petitioner were being taken and as per the readings taken , the petitioner has consumed an average of 25.1 Kilo liters of water per month. They have produced Ext. R2 showing the readings. They would further submit that the petitioner was also given an opportunity to settle the dues by availing of one time settlement scheme offered by the Water Authority, which also the petitioner has not cared to avail of. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.C. No. 12798/07 -: 2 :- 4. The petitioner has no case that she has paid any water charges after 13-5-1997. The average calculated in Ext. R2 varies from 19.3 Kilo liters to 28.7 Kilo liters. I do not find that such a consumption is exorbitant by any standards. Probably because of the fact that there was fault in meter in between that the petitioner was offered an opportunity to avail of the benefit under the one time settlement scheme. The petitioner has not cared to avail of that opportunity also. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of such a petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/