Disposed

Neeba A.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016WP(C)/23600/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging enhanced water charges and reclassification of domestic connection. Instead of deciding merits, the court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to file an appeal to the Executive Engineer under Regulation 17(d) within two weeks, with a final decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach third respondent (Executive Engineer) in appeal within two weeks for decision within two months, pursuant to Regulation 17(d).

Neeba A.S. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23600 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

NEEBA A.S.,AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. THULASI SADHU, MEBU VILLA, 50/653 A, AIMS P.O., MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶13

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶14

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶15

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, NEAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶16

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 683 104.

¶17

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU

¶19

R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC,

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 23600 of 2016 (Y)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.6.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE DEMAND AND DISCONNECTION NOTICE DT 30/5/2016. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.R1-2013 DT 16/6/2016.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶32

W.P.(C). NO. 23600 OF 2016

¶33

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the second respondent to dispose of Ext. P1 representation, referring the matter to Adalath, within a time frame fixed by this Court and for other reliefs. Material facts for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-

¶36

Petitioner is the owner of dwelling house No. XII/ 297C, Eloor South, Ernakulam District. Respondents changed the status of domestic connection into a nondomestic connection without any reason and petitioner is levied with an exorbitant amount as water charges. Though, petitioner highlighted the grievance before the respondents by filing Ext. P1, the same is not considered. It is in this

¶37

W.P.(C). NO. 23600 OF 2016 2

¶38

background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

A counter statement is filed by respondents 2 to 4 traversing the contentions raised in the writ petition, basically contending that even though a domestic consumption was provided to the petitioner, on inspection, it was found that the building is occupied by bachelors. However, from Regulation 17(d) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991, it is evident that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action on the part of the Assistant Executive Engineer, an appeal is provided to the Executive Engineer, within twenty days from the date of receipt of a bill prepared.

¶40

Therefore, I think it is only appropriate that without expressing anything on merits, a quietus can be given to the writ petition, by leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, as per the Regulations seeking to ventilate her grievances. If the petitioner makes any appeal, within two weeks from the

¶41

W.P.(C). NO. 23600 OF 2016 3

¶42

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the third respondent Executive Engineer, same shall be treated as an appeal, within the time permitted under law, and the third respondent shall take a decision on the same, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a further period of two months. The conditions pursuant to Regulation 17D shall be complied with by the petitioner.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶45

DCS

Neeba A.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeba A.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aparna Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Paul Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Philomina @ Ammini Vs the District Collector

M/S.Mohanan & Co. Vs Union of India

K.Abdul Rehiman Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (Agri)

Jayakumar Vs the Branch Manager