IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4925 of 2006(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KALATHINGAL MOHAMMED (ALIAS)KUNHU BAPPU, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, NEAR N.G.O. HOME PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITUY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI FOR R1 & R2 G.P.SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 4925/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: True copy of the bills. P2: True copy of the bill dated 24-5-1995. P3: True copy of the demand notice dated 24-5-1995 P4: True copy of the bill dated 27-6-1995 P5: True copy of the bill dated 23-9-1995 P6: True copy of the demand notice dated 7-10-1995. P7: True copy of the demand notice dated 14-3-2002 P8: True copy of the reply dated 15-3-2002 P9: True copy of the acknowledgment card dated 16-3-2002 P10: True copy of the demand notice dated 10-8-2005 P11: True copy of the recovery notice by the 3rd respondent dated 1-2-2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- R2(a): The true photocopy of the consumer personal ledger of the petitioner. R2(b): The true photocopy of notice dated 10-8-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4925 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a consumer of water challenges Ext.P11 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act at the instance of the Water Authority for recovery for an amount of Rs.67,775/-. The petitioner contends that normal charges for consumption in a month ranges between Rs.15 to 200. But by bill dated 25-5-1995 there was a demand for an amount of Rs.658/-. Ext.P2 also contains demand for an amount of Rs.3,394/- towards arrears. Admittedly, petitioner did not make the payment. Subsequently, bill Ext.P4 for a consolidated amount was also issued to the petitioner. Since this was also not satisfied, the water connection was disconnected on 27-10-1995. According to the petitioner, nothing was heard in this matter till the receipt of Ext.P7 demand notice for an amount of Rs.29,504/-. Against Ext.P7 the petitioner sent Ext.P8 reply. Nothing was heard for a period of two years. Ext.P11 notice is issued on the basis of Ext.P10 dated 10-8-2005 WPC 4925/06 2 for an amount of Rs.67, 775/-. It is Ext.P11 that has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3. It is contended that though the petitioner was originally a domestic consumer, ultimately it was converted into an industrial connection with effect from April, 1993 finding that the petitioner was running an Ice Factory and the water charge ranged between Rs.160 and 200. The petitioner paid the water charges only up to January, 1994 and thereafter he defaulted the payment. The department could not take meter reading from 1/1995 to 4/1995 as the factory was found closed. Total consumption for the period from December, 1994 to May, 1995 was assessed and ext.P2 bill was issued. Repeated notices were issued to him for remittance of the amount due. There was no response at all. Accordingly, the connection was severed on 14-3-2002 after issuance of Ext.P7 notice. Though the petitioner sent objection to the demand, he did not sent reply to the 2nd respondent as stated in the writ petition. No steps were taken by the petitioner to remit any amount so far. Notices were issued on 11-6-2002, 29-1-2003, 26-4-2005 and 16-8- WPC 4925/06 3 2005 but without response. There has been no remittance by the petitioner since 1995 and hence the impugned demand notice. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit as such. 3. Since the materials on record clearly indicates that the petitioner did not remit any amount towards water charges subsequent to January, 1994, it cannot be said that the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned demand notice. The petitioner does not have any case that he remitted any amount and then objected to a portion of the demand. 4. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned demand notice. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this judgment will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Water Authority for reconnection after remitting the amount due to the Water Authority. V. GIRI, JUDGE. mn.