IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20434 of 2010(D)
1. MA.AVAHEEDA BABU, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
... Respondent
2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
For Petitioner :SRI.JAGAN GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/07/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 20434 of 2010
==================
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a domestic consumer of water from the Kerala
Water Authority for the last more than seven years. The petitioner
submits that since the petitioner’s house is situated at the tail end of
the pipe line carrying water, there is a shortage of water supply.
According to the petitioner, despite this fact, from the year 2008
onwards, the petitioner has been served with water bills for exorbitant
amounts. On 29.3.2008, the petitioner requested for revision of the
bills and to adjust the excess amount. But that was not considered and
the petitioner continued to get bills for exorbitant amounts. The
petitioner used to remit the same under protest and again submitted
several representations. Ultimately, in Ext.P4 bill considerable
reduction was allowed by the 2nd respondent and she paid Rs.636/- as
directed by the 2nd respondent. But even thereafter, the petitioner was
issued with bills for exorbitant amount like Rs.18,572/- as evidenced
by Ext.P5 bill. Again, by Ext.P6 bill, an amount of Rs.26,658/- was
demanded. The petitioner again approached the 2nd respondent and
this time, an officer was deputed to inspect the water meter on
5.10.2009. The officer after inspection directed the petitioner to pay
w.p.c.20439/2010 2
Rs.5000/- for the time being assuring that the excess amount would
be adjusted in the next bills to be issued to her. The petitioner paid the
same. Thereafter, the petitioner was told that the meter is faulty. The
petitioner again filed Ext.P7 representation before the 2nd respondent
requesting for changing the water meter and reduction in the bills. But
again, by Ext.P8, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of
Rs.28,223/-. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent instructed the petitioner to
fix an air valve to the water meter, which was also installed.
Thereafter, it was found that the meter was recording much lower
readings. Despite the same, again, by Ext.P9 bill, the petitioner was
directed to pay an amount of Rs.41,363/-. The petitioner personally
met the 2nd respondent and ultimately, reduction was granted in Ext.P9
bill for an amount of Rs.16,771/-. Fed up with the attitude of the 2nd
respondent, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 statutory appeal before the 1st
respondent. That was also not considered. Again, by Ext.P13, the
petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.17,193/-. It is under
the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition
seeking the following reliefs:
"a) call for the records leading to Ext.P13;
b) issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing Ext.P13 to the extend it demands Rs.17,193/-;
c) direct the 1st respondent, to permit the petitioner to install a new
water meter in the place of the faulty water meter;
d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, or order or
direction directing the respondents to issue fresh revised bill to the
w.p.c.20439/2010 3
petitioner after fixing the consumption, on the basis of the actual
consumption to be assessed after installing a new meter;
e) direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass favourable orders on
Ext.P11 appeal, which is pending consideration before him, giving
considerable reduction in Ext.P13 treating the average
consumption of water as 35.4, as shown in Ext.P13 till readings
are taken on a new water meter to be installed.”
2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the Water Authority also.
3. From the facts narrated it is evident that the meter was not
recording the correct consumption of water by the petitioner. Despite
the same, instead of correcting the same properly, the respondents
have been serving the petitioner with additional bills for huge amounts
again and again knowing fully well that they do not represent the
correct charges for actual consumption of water by the petitioner. I do
not think that this situation should be allowed to continue and
therefore, a reasonable course of action should be adopted.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
The 2nd respondent shall see that an accurate water meter is
installed and that water meter records the actual consumption of water
by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall take readings of the
consumption of water from that meter for three months. Then, entire
bills for the period from 2008 onwards shall be revised in accordance
with the average consumption for the three months after the new
meter is installed. Excess amounts shall be adjusted against the future
w.p.c.20439/2010 4
bills of the petitioner. Till the above process is completed, the
petitioner shall be allowed to pay by-monthly water charges of
Rs.1000/-.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge