Disposed

Joy M.G. v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC18 Mar 2024WP(C)/7420/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A consumer granted a non-domestic water connection disputed exorbitant demands raised without actual consumption records. The court held that Regulation 13 requires billing based on meter readings and directed the Water Authority to issue bills showing actual consumption for the unpaid period, payable within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to issue bills showing actual consumption for the unpaid period; petitioner given one month to pay, failing which recovery proceedings may follow disconnection.

Joy M.G. Vs the Executive Engineer — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7420 OF 2020

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

JOY M.G.
AGED 59 YEARS
SON OF GEORGE,
MOONJALY HOUSE,
THOTTEKKARA,
ALUVA-686 672.
BY ADVS.
P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION,
ALUVA-683 101.
2THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION,
ALUVA-683 101.

¶8

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

¶9

OTHER PRESENT:

¶10

SRI. GEORGIE JOHNY (SC KWA)

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.7420 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner obtained a water connection on 01.11.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had applied for a connection for usage of water for domestic purposes, the connection granted to the petitioner was a connection for use of water for nondomestic purposes on the ground that the petitioner was running a car workshop in the building in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the car workshop was being run only in a portion of the building and the water for the purposes of the car workshop was being drawn exclusively from a well. It is pointed out that, it is clear from Ext.P1 that the average consumption of the petitioner was only 40 kilolitres. It is pointed out that, thereafter without raising any bill and without recording the actual consumption of water by the petitioner, huge demands were made by the respondents prompting the

¶16

WP(C)No.7420 of 2020

¶17

¶18

petitioner to approach the Kerala State Human Rights Commission by filing a complaint. It is pointed out that the Human Rights Commission, by Ext.P2 order directed the Water Authority to issue bills for actual consumption of water, though the contention of the petitioner that the bills must be issued at rates applicable for domestic connection, was rejected by the Human Rights Commission. It is submitted that, even today, no bills have been issued to the petitioner on the basis of the actual consumption.

¶19

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority would submit that, in terms of Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred as ‘the 1991 Regulation’), assessment of water charges shall be on the basis of the meter reading. It is submitted that, in the case of the petitioner, the meter readings are available and a bill can be issued to the petitioner on the basis of the actual meter readings. It is submitted that,

¶20

WP(C)No.7420 of 2020

¶21

¶22

since the connection granted to the petitioner was a new connection, the average consumption was estimated in terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 13(b) of the 1991 Regulations and therefore, the petitioner, cannot contend on the basis of Ext.P1 that exorbitant charges for water not consumed was actually levied on the petitioner.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and considering the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition, I am of the view that, in the light of the categoric finding of the State Human Rights Commission in Ext.P2 order, the petitioner cannot any longer contend that he is entitled to supply of water at rates applicable for domestic connections. Though it is doubtful as to whether the Human Rights Commission can actually exercise jurisdiction under the Provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 in respect of such matters, I cannot ignore the factual finding of the Human Rights Commission in Ext.P2 that in the case of the petitioner,

¶24

¶25

¶26

the connection was availed in respect of a premises where, only a motor vehicle workshop was functioning though it is a case of the petitioner that motor vehicle workshop was functioning only in a portion of the premises. However, the relief No.(i) is for a direction to the Kerala Water Authority to issue bills and collect charges from the petitioner only for the water actually consumed. Going by the provisions of Regulation 13 of 1991 Regulations, it is clear that charges can be levied only on the basis of the meter readings. Since it is stated that the meter readings are readily available, it is not necessary to consider the provisions which may apply in a case where, the meter reading is not available or where the meter is faulty.

¶27

Therefore, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the second respondent to issue bills for the entire period during which, the petitioner has not paid water charges specifically showing the consumption of the petitioner. On receipt of the said bills, the petitioner

¶28

¶29

¶30

shall pay the demands. The petitioner is granted one month time from the date of receipt of the bills to pay the amount demanded from him failing which recovery proceedings may be initiated against him after disconnection of water supply.

¶31

Sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE

rkj

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7420/2020

¶36

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE` `NO.22` `THE B` `AUTHO`	`PHOTOSTAT` `625889, D` `ILLING OF` `RITY.`	`COP` `ATED` `FICER`	`Y OF THE WATER BILL` `16.12.2016 ISSUED BY` `OF THE KERALA WATER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE` `KERAL` `DATED`	`PHOTOSTAT` `A STATE` `08.03.201`	`COPY` `HUMAN` `7.`	`OF THE ORDER OF THE` `RIGHTS COMMISSION,`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE` `BY TH`	`PHOTOSTAT` `E 2ND RESP`	`COPY` `ONDEN`	`OF THE NOTICE ISSUED` `T, DATED 12.12.2019.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE`	`PHOTOSTAT`	`COPY`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION`
		`GIVEN` `RESPO`	`BY THE` `NDENT, DAT`	`PET` `ED 14`	`ITIONER TO THE 2ND` `.12.2019.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE` `2ND` `28.1.`	`PHOTOCOPY` `RESPONDENT` `2020.`	`OF T` `TO`	`HE LETTER SENT BY THE` `THE PETITIONER, DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE` `THE` `DATED`	`PHOTOSTAT` `PETITIONER` `06.02.202`	`COPY` `TO` `0.`	`OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT,`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE`	`PHOTOSTAT`	`COP`	`Y OF THE STATEMENT`
		`FILED` `HUMAN`	`BY THE` `RIGHTS CO`	`2ND R` `MMISS`	`ESPONDENT BEFORE THE` `ION, DATED NIL.`

Joy M.G. v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy M.G. v. the Executive Engineer

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

Radhamani Vs Sub Collector/Tribunal for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Wilson Mathew (Pan AILPM2852M), Vs the Income Tax Officer

A.Sulfikar Vs State of Kerala

Marysadan Edathala International Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Valsala Devi Vs Deputy Collector (La)

V.O.Jose Vs Asst.Commissioner (Assmnt)