D. Sugathakumari vs The Kerala Water Authority

Justice S. Siri Jagan

The petitioner is a consumer of water from the Kerala Water Authority. During the period in question, the petitioner was paying water charges on the basis of provisional invoice card. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been paying the fixed amount of water charges as per the provisional invoice card every month till July, 2006. Suddenly, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P1 bill directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 21,997/- for the period during 30.4.2002 to 21.7.2006, as arrears of water charges. According to the petitioner, the average monthly charges payable by the petitioner is only Rs. 22/- and therefore by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner would become liable to pay the said amount. The petitioner therefore, caused Ext.P2 complaint to be filed through her advocate. By Ext.P3, a reply was given, wherein, after stating that the petitioner is liable to pay the additional demands, the petitioner has been informed that the petitioner''s appeal cannot be considered without the petitioner remitting 50% of the amount demanded. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

ii. declare that the demanded in Ext.P1 is unsustainable viz a viz Regulation 13(b) of the Water Supply Regulations 1991.

iii. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order to quash Ext.P3.

iv. issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceedings further in pursuance of Ext.P1 bill.

No counter affidavit has been filed by the Kerala Water Authority. The standing counsel for the Water Authority argues in support of the demand.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Even under the provisional invoice card system, adjustment bill can be issued only for excess water consumed by the petitioner. Excess water consumed is to be ascertained with reference to the meter readings. The difference between two meter readings over a period of time is the consumption, based on which only the actual charges have to be computed and adjustment bill issued. From the pleadings before me, I do not find any such exercise having been undertaken by the respondents before issuing Ext.P1 bill. At the same time, I am not in a position to decide whether the petitioner had actually consumed excess water or not in the absence of sufficient materials on record before me. In the above circumstances,, the only course open to me is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner, which is Ext.P2, without insisting on payment of the 50% as demanded in Ext.P3 insofar as the counsel for the respondents could not bring to my attention any provision of law which insists on payment of 50% as a condition for consideration of the appeal.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 complaint of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and pass a considered order. Such considered order shall contain details like initial meter reading and final meter reading based on which Ext.P1 bill has been issued. A calculation based on the same after deducting the monthly payments should also be given therein. Such an order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, the interim order, staying recovery of amounts covered by Ext.P1 bill, passed in this writ petition would continue to be in force.