High Court Kerala High Court

Shameema vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Shameema vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2186 of 2011(W)


1. SHAMEEMA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.M.A.THASNIM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/01/2011

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                    W.P.(C) NO. 2186 OF 2011
                 =====================

           Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011

                          J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by Exts.P2, P3 and P4, petitioner has filed this

writ petition.

2. Petitioner is a consumer of Water Authority. According

to the petitioner, Ext.P1 shows the normal bill amount, which have

all been paid. It is stated that, despite that, by Exts.P2, P3 and P4

exorbitant demands were made, which is unrelated to the water

consumed. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 to the

respondent. That was not considered and therefore she has

approached this Court.

3. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel

for the Water Authority, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P2,

P3 and P4, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file appeal

before the Executive Engineer of the Water Authority. Petitioner

has not filed any appeal and on the other hand has filed Ext.P5

representation to the 2nd respondent, who is not the competent

authority. That apart, it is also pointed out that, under the

Regulations, to maintain an appeal, 50% of the amount

WPC No. 2186/11
:2 :

demanded should be remitted.

4. Although it is true that Ext.P5 has been filed before a

wrong authority, still having regard to the fact that the regulations

provide for an appellate remedy, I direct that, on the production

of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will forward Ext.P5

to the Executive Engineer concerned, who shall treat Ext.P5 as an

appeal filed by the petitioner against Exts.P2, P3 and P4 and

consider the same with notice to the petitioner and pass

appropriate orders. This shall be done, on the petitioner remitting

30% of the amount due under Exts.P2, P3 and P4 and on such

remittance, coercive action pursuant to the impugned bills shall

be kept in abeyance. The amount shall be remitted within one

week from today.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp