High Court Kerala High Court

T.M.Joseph vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 22 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
T.M.Joseph vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 22 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16978 of 2007(U)


1. T.M.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, GEENA FAST FOOD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R R),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :22/05/2009

 O R D E R
                               S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                       ==================

                          W.P(C).No.16978 of 2007

                       ==================

                  Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009

                               J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a consumer of water supplied by the Kerala

Water Authority. Water connection was given to the petitioner in the

business premises of the petitioner, where he was conducting a hotel.

The connection was obtained in the year 1996. The petitioner’s

contention is that he closed the hotel in 2002 and applied for

disconnection of the water supply and accordingly, the water

connection was disconnected in the year 2003. However, the petitioner

was served with a notice by the 2nd respondent demanding arrears of

water charges for the period from 2002 to 2006. Although the

petitioner objected to the same, again notice was issued. Now the

petitioner has been served with Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice

seeking to recover an amount of Rs.74,157/- towards water charges.

The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, the

demand is for the period during which he did not consume any water

in so far as he had closed his hotel in 2002 and the water connection

was disconnected in the year 2003. The petitioner, therefore, seeks

the following reliefs:

“i. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to
call for the records leading upto Exhibit P1, and quash the same.

ii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or other writ or direction directing the

2

2nd respondent to consider and take appropriate steps on Exhibit
P2 in accordance with law forthwith.”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents

disputing every contention of the petitioner. It is submitted that after

obtaining connection in 1996, the petitioner never paid any amount

towards water charges. According to them, the 1st respondent never

received any application from the petitioner for disconnection either in

2002 or in 2003. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the water

connection was disconnected due to non-payment of water charges, on

30.3.2005. According to the 1st respondent, the demand now made is

for water charges for the period from 1996 to 2005. The total arrears

of water charges is Rs.26,903/- and the balance are service charges,

fine, postage charges and disconnection charges is the submission

made by the respondents.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. Although in Ground C of the writ petition the petitioner has

made a bald statement that the petitioner paid all arrears till the date

of disconnection, the petitioner has not been able to produce any

evidence in support of that contention. The petitioner has also not

chosen to file any reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st

respondent. The 1st respondent has categorically stated that the

petitioner never paid any water charges after obtaining connection in

1996. The contention of the petitioner is that the demand for water

3

charges is for the period from 2002 to 2005, which is also disputed by

the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent submits that the demand is for

the period from 1996 to 2005. In the absence of any denial of the

statement in the counter affidavit filing a reply affidavit, I am unable to

accept the contention of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner seeks waiver of the penal charges also.

Regulation 14 of the Water Supply Regulations provides thus:

“14. Fine on default of payments of water charges and
dues etc.- (a) The charges due for the water consumed in a month,
subject to the minimum charge and other levies fixed by the Authority
vide Sections 31 and 33 of the Act as computed in the manner indicated
in regulation 13 or in clauses (d) and (e) of regulation 17 of these
Regulations shall be paid by the owner or occupier of the premises to the
Assistant Executive or any other officer or agency authorised by the
Authority on or before the date indicated in the bills or the slab cards, as
the case may be.

(b) A fine amounting to Rs.5.00/month in respect of domestic
connections and 2% of the outstanding charges for every month in
respect of non domestic connections shall be levied by the Authority from
consumers who fail to pay the water charges on or before the dates
indicated in the bills or the slab cards served. For the purpose of this
clause a month shall be taken as 30 days and fractions of a month shall
be treated as a full month.

In view of the said provision I do not think that penal charges

can be waived, since the same is statutory and the default in payment

has been found against the petitioner. In the above circumstances,

there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is

dismissed.

Sd/-

sdk+                                                  S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
          ///True copy///
                                 P.A. to Judge

4