SOUKAR MASJID COMMITTEE Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P2 order passed by the respondent dated 14.03.2017, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P1, for changing the water connection to domestic was declined, on the ground that domestic connection can be provided only to residential buildings, and since the petitioner is a religious institution, such connection cannot be provided. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a Masjid Committee established 85 years ago, and used by Muslim community for prayer. There is a well attached to the Mosque which supplies sufficient water. The consumption of water is very low. According to the petitioner, respondent committed error in levying water charges at the tariff provided to non-domestic connection. Thereupon, Ext.P1 application was submitted on 07.02.2017, for altering the connection as one for domestic purpose. However, the same is declined, holding that the domestic connection can only be provided to residential purposes. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order passed by the respondent is in violation of the provisions of Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 [for short, 'the Act, 1986'] and also the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. According to the respondent, the building is used as a Mosque and the petitioner did not remit the water charges from 4/2001 onwards, and an amount of Rs.3,40,303/- was due, up to April, 2017, which was under challenge before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha in C.C.No.76 of 2016 and the same was finally disposed on 14.03.2017, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.30,000/- towards arrears. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had preferred Appeal No.263 of 2017 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and which is pending consideration at the time when the counter affidavit was filed. However, during the course of arguments, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by the Water Authority is dismissed. Other contentions are also raised with respect to the non-functioning of the water meter etc. etc., which are not of much relevance to decide the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition.