IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1011 of 2009(U)
1. A.RAMA PRABHU,ADVOCATE,'AYODHYA',
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SMT.R.RANJINI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-----------------------
W.P.(C).No.1011 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P5 and P7 and seeks a
stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 including
recovery of the amount mentioned therein.
2. Petitioner had, at his residential premises bearing
Door No.40/5497, a water connection with Consumer
No.40/693/D. It is stated that despite the fact that there
was no supply or consumption, he was issued Ext.P1, on
28.3.1994, stating that for arrears of Rs.405/- the water
connection will be discontinued. Admittedly, payment was
not made and thereafter he was issued in Ext.P2 dated
31.3.2002 a consumer bill demanding an amount of
Rs.5409/-. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the meter at the
premises was not working. On receipt of Ext.P2, petitioner
replied by Ext.P3 referring to Ext.P1 and contending that
WP(c).No.1011/09 2
the water connection is already disconnected and therefore he
has no liability to pay the amount.
3. Consequently, on 1.11.2008 the respondents issued
Ext.P5, another disconnection advice, informing the petitioner
that disconnection of water supply may be effected for non-
payment of water charges of Rs.9791/-. Then again by Ext.P6,
petitioner stated that upon receipt of Ext.P2 he had objected
by filing Ext.P3 and that since 1994, there has not been any
supply in the premises. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P1
since water supply was disconnected way back in 1994 there
is no question of making any further payment and that is
replied by the water authority in Ext.P7 stating that, the
petitioner had not made any valid application for
disconnection of the water connection, that the connection is
still maintained and that the bills were issued on the basis of
average consumption. It is challenging Ext.P7 the present writ
petition is filed.
WP(c).No.1011/09 3
4. Counsel for the water authority submits that a proper
application as specified in the Water Supply Regulations was
never made by the petitioner for disconnection. It is also his
case that the consumer had liability to pay the amount. It is
stated that since the meter was not working, taking the
minimum average consumption of 20 kl, the bills were issued
to the petitioner. Finally, he also submits that in terms of
clause 17-D of the Water Supply Regulations, if at all the
petitioner is aggrieved, petitioner’s remedy lies before the
appellate authority by filing an appeal.
5. As far as the theory of disconnection canvassed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned,
admittedly the petitioner has not made any application as
required in terms of the Regulations. If that be so, I cannot
find fault with the water authority for not having disconnected
the water supply pursuant to Ext.P3. This is all the more in the
context of the averment made by the counsel for the water
authority, that Ext.P1 was only an intimation that
WP(c).No.1011/09 4
disconnection may be effected for non-payment.
6. True the counsel for the petitioner referred to clause
14(c) of the Regulations and contended that if there is
nonpayment respondents have power to discontinue water
supply. Though there is a power of disconnection as
contended by the counsel for the petitioner, even if it is not
exercised that does not mean that the consumer is
exonerated of his liability to pay the amount.
7. Admittedly in this case, the connection has not been
disconnected and what is now demanded is on the basis of
average consumption, for the reason that the meter was not
worked. In these circumstances, what emerges is the
quantification of the exact liability which can be done only in
an appeal which the petitioner may file in terms of Clause 17-
D of the regulations. Although the counsel for the petitioner
contended that in a case of this nature, there is no appellate
remedy, I do not think that I should labour much on that issue.
This is for the reason that the respondents themselves have
WP(c).No.1011/09 5
said that there is a right of appeal and hence, the petitioner,
need not have any apprehension about its maintainability.
Without prejudice to that right, the writ petition is
dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.1011/09 6