Quashed

Anitha Shaji v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017WP(C)/32297/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam directed the second respondent to reconsider the disputed water bill liability after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, as the initial order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Coercive action was kept in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 order quashed; direction to reconsider after hearing within 45 days; coercive action in abeyance.

Anitha Shaji Vs Kerala Water Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 32297 of 2017 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ANITHA SHAJI, AGED 48 YEARS, WIDOW OF LATE V.H. SHAJI, DOOR NO.14/245, VAZHIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKKODE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. - 685 585.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.ELSA DENNY PINDIS SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR SRI.MANU SRINATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 32297 of 2017 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE BILL DATED 10.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE WATER AUTHORITY.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2016.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 30.1.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO EXT. P3 DATED 2.3.2017.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT. P5 DATED.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.3.2017.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.4.2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.14129/2017

¶27

EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.5.2017

¶28

EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.6.2017

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(C) No.32297 of 2017

¶36

======================== Dated this the 11^th day of December 2017

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner in this writ petition was before this Court earlier, in W.P.(C)No.14129/2017, challenging the water bills issued to the petitioner by the Kerala Water Authority. By a judgment dated 21.4.2017, the said writ petition was disposed of leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file objection to the water bills within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, and the second respondent was directed to consider the same in accordance with law, and attain finality to the same within a month from the date of filing of such objection. In accordance with the directions issued by this Court, the second respondent has passed Ext.P10 order dated 19.6.2017, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the water bills as is issued by the water authority. Now this writ petition is filed, challenging Ext.P10 order.

¶39

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent refuting the allegations and claims and demands

¶40

W.P.(C) No.32297 of 2017

¶41

¶42

raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions it is stated in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was heard by the third respondent on 6.6.2017 and 7.6.2017, and the bill issued by the respondents is in accordance with the reading taken on various occasions and the petitioner is liable to pay the same.

¶43

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the water authority.

¶44

The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner was heard by the third respondent. However Ext.P10 order is passed by the second respondent. From Ext.P10, what I could gather is that the petitioner was heard by the second respondent as well as the third respondent on 6.6.2017 and 7.6.2017. However, from the counter affidavit filed it is evident that the petitioner was heard by the third respondent alone. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner by the second respondent before passing Ext.P10 order is correct.

¶45

W.P.(C) No.32297 of 2017

¶46

¶47

In that view of the matter, the order passed by the second respondent without hearing the petitioner cannot be sustained under law. Therefore, I quash Ext.P10 order, and direct the second respondent to reconsider the issue after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible time, and at any rate within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time coercive action if any initiated pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

sd/

¶50

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶51

jm/

Anitha Shaji v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Shaji v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby A.Y Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Ambily Sivankutty Vs Union of India

P. Saji Vs the State of Kerala

Ambily K.S Vs Dr. A.M. Ramanunny

C.a.Abbas Vs the Administrator, Kavaratti

Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne Vs State of Kerala