RUPESH RAVINDRAN Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner who appears in person. Also heard Sri.P.Benjamin Paul, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Water Authority.

(2.) The petitioner's mother-in-law is a consumer under the Kerala Water Authority and purportedly at the instance of the consumer, the petitioner approached the court to challenge the Exts.P1 and P2 gazette notifications dated 25.9.2014 and 30.9.2014, whereby, the water tariff to various categories of consumers, was revised by the Kerala Water Authority. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the notifications were not gazetted and therefore, there can be no legal sanction to those notifications, which came to be gazetted only in the year 2017.

(3.) However, the learned single Judge referred to the petitioner's earlier case, W.P(C).33566/16, and recorded that the very same question was raised by the petitioner in the earlier round. In the appeal filed against the judgment in W.P(C).33566/16, the learned Division Bench, taking note of the withdrawal of the bill, observed noted that due credit for that bill for the amount paid by the consumer will be adjusted against future bills and on that basis, the appeal was ordered to be closed.