MOTHER SUPERIOR Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petition is filed for quashing Ext. P1, P2, P3 and P5. Petitioner is the Mother Superior, Avila Convent, Kandanad. Water connection was given to the petitioner for domestic purposes. While so, the 3rd respondent by Ext. P1 informed the petitioner that disconnection of water supply should be effected for the reason that the water charge was paid by the petitioner at domestic rate. By Ext. P2 the petitioner was also informed that as average consumption was very high, the petitioner had to change the connection from domestic rate into non domestic rate and the petitioner was directed to attend the 3rd respondent's office on 22.4.1997 to settle the matter. By Ext. P3 the petitioner was directed to execute an agreement for changing the connection into non domestic. Petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation before the 2nd respondent stating that the water was used only for domestic purpose. By Ext. P5 order the 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner's representation and the petitioner was requested to remit the dues and execute a new agreement for the conversion from domestic to non domestic. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The stand taken by the respondents is that though the connection has been given for domestic purposes, on inspection it is found that water was used for non domestic purposes also. The respondents contended that the average monthly consumption of more than 57 KL of drinking water by the petitioner could not be treated as domestic connection. The respondents also contended that institution like convent was categorised as non domestic. Further it is contended that the petitioner had accommodated students also in the convent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner convent is a domestic establishment, the use of water is only domestic purposes and hence the petitioner is liable to pay the water charges at domestic tariff. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Social S.G. of Assisi Sisters v. K.S.E.B. ( 1998 (1) KLT 727 ). In the above decision a Division Bench of this Court while considering S.22B of the Electricity Act, 1910 held that convent and monastery are not commercial establishments. Learned counsel also relied on, a decision reported in Asst. Executive Engineer v. Seetharama Rao ( 1999 (2) KLT 624 ), in which S.37 of the Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 was considered by this Court and made an observation that the restaurant had to be treated separately from the lodging house.