K.B. Suresh vs State of Kerala

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved, by the bills issued by the Kerala Water Authority, produced as Exhibits P3 and P4, as also the recovery notice, produced at Exhibit P5. The petitioner''s contention is that no bills are issued after 2001. There was no water connection after 2001 in the premises which was leased out to the 4th respondent. In the context of there being no water supply after 2001, the petitioner had not paid any amounts and the petitioner is not liable to pay any amounts, argues the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The 3rd respondent has filed a statement, seeking to sustain the recovery initiated. The statement shows that the petitioner was granted water connection during December, 1995. The petitioner was also issued with Provisional Invoice Card [PIC] as permitted by Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991 [for short "the Regulations"]. The petitioner was obliged to make payments as per the PIC and adjustments could be made only at the end of the year when a proper bill was issued. But, the petitioner had not made any remittance as per the PIC.

The petitioner contends in the writ petition that the water supply was stopped in 2001. However, there is no specific averment as to the petitioner having applied for disconnection of the water connection or having complained against the non-supply of water, argues the learned Standing Counsel. The statement also indicates that there is nothing on record to show that disconnection was effected in November, 2001. A billing system, by which the users were obliged to make payments as per the PIC, was introduced and there was no requirement of any meter reading to be taken. Hence, the 3rd respondent seeks to sustain the recovery now sought to be effected.

In considering the aforesaid issue, this Court cannot but notice that Exhibits P3 and P4 bills specifically noticed the status of the connection as "not working". The dues upto September, 2004 was an amount of Rs. 1,02,340/-. Since the status of the meter was "not working" in Exhibit P3, obviously no liability could be cast on the petitioner for the period between 04.10.2004 to 01.12.2004 and for the subsequent periods. The Water Authority could have disconnected the connection as per Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1991. No attempt was made by the Water Authority to disconnect the connection despite there being arrears, allegedly, of more than Rupees One Lakh, due from the petitioner. The Authority itself having admitted the status to be one in which no supply is effected, it is declared that the respondent-Authority cannot seek for any water charges subsequent to 04.10.2004.

With respect to the arrears remaining as on September, 2004, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has raised a specific contention of the recovery being barred by limitation. The Water Authority ought to have proceeded for recovery within the limitation period, even under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, as has been laid down in State of Kerala and Ors Vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and Anr, . On a perusal of the recovery notice produced in the writ petition, as Exhibit P5, obviously such recovery was initiated only in the year 2010. In such circumstance, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the dues upto September, 2004 is also not permissible by reason only of the same being barred by limitation.

Writ petition allowed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.