@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is a consumer of water from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the first respondent herein. A bill at Annexure ''A1'' dated 9.7.2005 was issued to the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 2,845/- towards water charges and meter charges for the period from 9.6.2005 to 9.7.2005. As per this bill, the previous reading of the meter was 120000 and the present reading was 183000 and the total consumption of water was 63000 ltrs. The petitioner has paid the bill on 30.7.2005. Another bill at Annexure ''A'' dated 9.8.2005 was issued for the period from 9.7.2005 to 9.8.2005 towards water and meter charges. In this bill, the previous reading was 183000 and the present reading was 233000 and the total consumption of water was 50000 ltrs. A sum of Rs. 2,307/- was demanded towards water charges and meter charges. The last date for payment of this bill was 24.8.2005. Since the petitioner did not pay the bill, the water supply was disconnected to the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner paid the bill only on 26.10.2005. Thereafter, the water connection was given to the premises of the petitioner in the month of January, 2006. Thus there was no water connection from September, 2005 till January, 2006
3. The consumption, payments and arrears of water charges are shown in the meter ledger report at Annexure ''C''. It is clear from this report that there was no water connection till the month of January, 2006. A fresh water bill was issued on 9.2.2006 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,77,593/- on the ground that petitioner has consumed 609000 ltrs. of water.
4. As stated above, petitioner has paid the bill as per Annexure ''A1'' consumption of water from 9.7.2005 to 9.8.2005 in a sum of Rs. 2,307/-. Admittedly, there was no water connection till the month of January, 2006. It is un-understandable as to how the respondents can demand a sum of Rs. 1,77,593/- as per the bill dated 9.2.2006. The matter was referred to the Water Adalath, wherein it was admitted that there was an erroneous billing. However, they have demanded a sum of Rs. 3,16,019/- by taking average reading and a revised bill was issued accordingly after allowing the rebate. Prima facie, I do not find any justification for demanding the said amount. It is no doubt true that after reconnection in the month of January, 2006, again, the supply was disconnected in the month of January, 2007. By no stretch of imagination, there can be a demand for such huge amount, particularly, when the consumption of water by the petitioner on an average was about 50000 ltrs. and for a substantial period, there was no water connection. The respondents have to reconsider the matter.
5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure ''E'' dated 11.10.2012 in so far as the petitioner is concerned (R.R. No. 11066/PND/421) is hereby quashed. The second respondent is directed to re-compute the water charges payable by the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations/made in the course of the order.
No costs.
