The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand raised with respect to the dues towards alleged supply of water by the respondents 1 and 2 and the purported settlement said to have been agreed to by the petitioner. The petitioner is an unaided school wherein admittedly, a water connection was taken in the year 1994. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that in the year 1994- 1995 itself, due to the supply of the water having been disrupted for want of proper supply channels being laid, the supply was discontinued and the meter installed in the premises had also become in-operable. The petitioner, hence, dug a well within its premises and was taking water from the said well. The petitioner hence would assert that no water had been supplied to the petitioner by the respondent-Water Authority. The petitioner neither was issued with any bills nor was any meter reading taken, with respect to the consumption at any time. 2. The petitioner, in the year 2006, was confronted with a disconnection advice, as evidenced by Ext.P1, wherein an amount of Rs.6,73,680/- was demanded. Ext.P1-disconnection advice nor the subsequent demand raised as per Ext.P2, revealed no details, regarding the consumption of water or the meter reading taken. The petitioner hence replied with Ext.P3, contending that though water connection was taken in the year 1994, no supply had, in fact, been made to the petitioner's school. It was also specifically contended in Ext.P3, that no bills were issued nor amounts demanded after the alleged installation of the connection. Subsequently, by Ext.P4, the petitioner was informed of a One Time Settlement wherein certain concessions were promised. In Ext.P4, the water authority, contrary to its earlier demand of Rs.6,73,680/- declared the dues of the petitioner to be 7,95,098/-. The petitioner again wrote to the 2nd respondent reiterating that not a drop of water has been supplied to the petitioner after the installation of the connection. Again, a demand was raised, without any period being specified and an amount of Rs.1,41,693/- was demanded as per Ext.P6. The petitioner reiterated the earlier plea, by Ext.P7, that there are no dues, since there was no supply of water.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P8 communication wherein, the water authority alleged a settlement, having been agreed to by the petitioner for satisfaction of the dues by way of a One Time Settlement. The period specified having expired, the water authority also extended the period by Ext.P8. The petitioner, at the first instance, itself objected to the same, contending that the petitioner had never agreed to any settlement.
4. The petitioner also filed an appeal from the demand raised as per Ext.P9 as per Regulation 17(1)(d) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991. The petitioner further, approached this Court with W.P(C) No.20419/2009 which was disposed of by Ext.P14. Ext.P14 directed consideration of the appeal and also directed payment of the amounts demanded by the Water Authority as One Time Settlement, however, making it clear that the same would be provisional. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P15 minutes, wherein the Executive Engineer has decided to recommend to the Managing Director, to re-consider the case again under One Time Settlement. The petitioner is aggrieved by such disposal of the appeal, without looking at the sustainability of the demand raised by the respondents.
5. The contention taken by the water authority is that the petitioner had agreed to the One Time Settlement scheme, and hence, the petitioner cannot turn around and dispute the liability. It is to be noticed that at every point, right from the initiation of the proceedings for recovery evidenced by Ext.P1, the petitioners consistent case was that the petitioner was not supplied with even a drop of water after installation of the water connection. The petitioner also had, at each turn, contended that the petitioner had not agreed to any settlement under a scheme or otherwise. It is pertinent that this Court has also, in Ext.P14, specifically recorded the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had not undertaken or agreed to any settlement under a One Time Settlement Scheme.
6. Significantly, the respondent has not produced anything to show that the petitioner has agreed to settle the amounts, under the OTS Scheme. The various orders issued by the Water Authority granting extension of time to settle under the OTS Scheme; contain merely self serving statements made by the officers of the respondent, regarding the acquiescence of the petitioner. The respondents have not produced anything in the writ petition also, to show that the petitioner has agreed to a One Time Settlement.
7. It is also evident that, the appeal filed, is from the demand raised; as provided under Regulation 17(1)(d) of the Regulations of 1991. The appellate authority was not called upon to decide on the One Time Settlement Scheme or the time granted for settlement. The appellate authority ought to have gone into the merits of the matter and decided upon the demand raised, as to whether the Water Authority is able to substantiate the demand, on the basis of bills issued for water supplied, with reference to the reading recorded regarding the consumption, from the meter installed.
8. Normally, this Court would have directed a fresh consideration in the appeal. But, however, there is nothing in the counter affidavit of the respondent, which would indicate that the Water Authority or its officials had been conducting a reading of the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner and had been issuing regular bills thereon. But for a bland statement that the reading would be recorded in the ledgers maintained at its office, the period for which the demand is raised, was not revealed in the various orders issued to the petitioner. There is also absolutely no whisper about the amount of water consumed, against which only, demand could be raised. In such circumstance, there would be absolutely no purpose served in relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority. The various demands raised, being not in consonance with each other, and not having revealed the period or the consumption based on which the demand is raised, smacks of arbitrariness. In fact there is a specific procedure as is found in regulation of 91 which casts the responsibility on the authority to monitor the consumption and assess the demand for each period, at regular intervals. An authority enjoined with the duty to carry on a public service, and collect the amount due for provision of such services, cannot impose liability or proceed to recover alleged dues without providing, to the consumer, the basis for such demand and the periods for which such demands are raised.
9. Having considered the entire circumstances, as also the responsibility of the Department to regularly monitor the consumption, the writ petition is allowed. The demand raised are set aside. The petitioner shall be given refund of the amounts deposited as per Ext.P14 within a period of two months from today. If the same is not refunded to the petitioner within the time stipulated, the deposit shall carry interest @6% from the date of deposit to the date of refund. This interest liability however, shall not be mulcted on the authority as such. The Water Authority shall pay the amount as interest and recover the same from the officer who had committed default in ordering such refund.
Writ petition allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge