IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1678 of 2009()
1. T.M.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, GEENA FAST FOOD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
For Petitioner :SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :09/12/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.1678 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
Appellant was a consumer under the Kerala Water
Authority. Admittedly, he had obtained water connection for
commercial purpose, namely for the conduct of his hotel business, in
the year 1996. According to the appellant, he had discontinued his
hotel business in the year 2002 and applied for disconnection of water
supply. However, the appellant was served with a demand notice
asking him to pay arrears of water charges to the tune of Rs.74,157/-.
When recovery proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act, appellant filed the writ petition praying for issue of a
writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice. There was a
further prayer to issue a direction to the Water Authority to consider
Ext.P2 representation submitted by him.
2. The learned Single Judge after adverting to the various
contentions raised by the Water Authority in the counter affidavit held
W.A.No.1678 of 2009.
– 2 –
that there was no merit in any of the contentions raised by the
appellant and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ
appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant having discontinued his hotel business in the year 2002 it
was not legal or just on the part of the Water Authority to issue a
demand for the alleged arrears.
4. However, as rightly noticed by the learned Single
Judge, the appellant had not produced any document to substantiate
his contention that he had discontinued his business in the year 2002
or he had made any request to disconnect the water supply. More
importantly, not even a single receipt was produced by the appellant
to show that he had remitted any water charges at any point of time.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge took the view that the contention
raised by the appellant that he had discontinued his hotel business in
the year 2002 or that he had requested for disconnection of water
supply could not be accepted or believed.
5. We have carefully perused the entire materials
W.A.No.1678 of 2009.
– 3 –
available on record. We are totally satisfied with the finding entered
by the learned Single Judge. As mentioned by us earlier, the
appellant had not produced even a scrap of paper to show that he had
remitted any water charges at any point of time. He had not also
produced any document to show that he had applied for
disconnection of water supply in Form No.RA-4 as provided under
the Water Supply Regulations. The claim for waiver of penal charges
was also rightly turned down by the learned Single Judge in view of
the provisions contained in Regulation 14.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
having considered the entire materials available on record, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ
appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
A.K. Basheer,
Judge
vns