Dismissed

Jose Anto v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC29 Jan 2019WP(C)/20738/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged exaggerated water demand notices and disconnection via a writ petition. After restoring the water connection upon interim order payment and acknowledging the petitioner's submission regarding Citizens Charter limits on penalties, the Court disposed of the writ, directing the authorities to reconsider representations within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing respondents to consider petitioner's representations regarding Citizens Charter limits and decide within two months.

Jose Anto Vs Kerala Water Authority — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 20738 of 2015

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSE ANTO V AGED 70 YEARS S/O.PAILY,VALLUVASSERY HOUSE,WATER FRONT ENCLAVE,COCHIN-682020.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,HEAD OFFICE,'JALABHAVAN',VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695033.

¶12

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, VYTTILLA,KOCHI-20.

¶13

3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, VYTILLA,KOCHI-20.

¶14

SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 20738 of 2015

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved

¶20

by an exaggerated demand towards water charges raised by the respondents. According to the petitioner he has been regularly paying the bills, on issuance of the same by the water authority. On 27-12-2014 the petitioner was served a bill for Rs. 2,507/-, with a noting that the meter is not working. This was followed with another bill dated 23-02-2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,651/-, in which also it is noted that the meter is not working and the consumer was directed to replace the meter. Yet another bill for Rs. 7,215/- was also received by the petitioner on 23-04-2015. According to the petitioner, after receipt of the afore mentioned bills, he had approached the 3^rd respondent for the purpose of remitting the bill amounts and for taking steps to change the faulty water meter. Reliance is placed on Exhibit P4 letter submitted by the petitioner and the endorsement therein made by the 3^rd respondent, demanding remittance of Rs. 1,32,509/towards water charges. Immediately thereupon the petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 requesting to rectify the mistake in the demand and to provide him with a new water meter. In the

¶21

WP(C).No. 20738 of 2015 3 meanwhile the petitioner's water connection was disconnected

¶22

and he was directed to pay the entire amount due in installments. There upon, this writ petition was filed seeking to quash the demand for Rs. 1,32,509/- and also for a direction to the 3^rd respondent to reconnect and provide water supply to the petitioner's Consumer no. 28/1939 D. While admitting the writ petition this Court had passed an interim order directing to restore water connection, on the petitioner remitting the amount shown in Exhibit P3, the undisputed bill.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount as directed in the interim order was paid and the water connection restored. The learned counsel also relies on Exhibit P6- Citizens Charter issued by the Kerala Water Authority, stipulating the manner in which bills are to be remitted and the facilities being provided by the water authority to its consumers. The learned counsel draws attention to Sub clause 19 of Clause 6 in Exhibit P6, wherein it is stated that the penalty with respect to failure on the part of the consumer to rectify the faulty meter, in cases where such rectification was not carried out for a period of 4 months, is only 100% of the demand.

¶24

WP(C).No. 20738 of 2015

¶25

¶26

Considering the fact that the petitioner has already

¶27

remitted the demand raised as per Exhibit P3 and that his water connection has been restored. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Exhibits P4 and P5 representations,after hearing the petitioner with reference to his contention based on the Clause in the Citizens Charter mentioned above and to take an appropriate decision there on within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C).No. 20738 of 2015

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 27.12.2014	BILL DATED
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF 23.2.2015	THE BILL DATED
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF 23.4.2015	THE BILL DATED
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF 17.6.15 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPON	THE LETTER DATED BY THE PETITIONER DENT
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF 18.6.2015 SUBMITT	THE LETTER DATED ED TO THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF PUBLISHED BY RESP	THE CITIZENS CHARTER ONDENT NO.1.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶39

//TRUE COPY// Sd/-

¶40

PA TO JUDGE

Jose Anto v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Anto 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

Aparna S Anil Vs the Vice Chancellor University of Kerala

Sachidhanandha Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sunnil Kumar K., Vs District Collector

Vijayan Pillai Vs Deputy Director of Panchayath

Mohana Krishna Sharma V.K. Vs the Kerala Water Authority

K.a.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala