Respected Sir,

I am writing in respectful but firm objection to the arrears of ₹4,556.00 appearing on the above-referenced bill, and to place on record the procedural irregularities through which this demand has been raised against the consumer.

A.Statement of Facts

1. On or about [date of meter-reader's visit], HSVP meter-reading staff identified, during a routine reading, that the existing water meter installed at the above premises was under-reading consumption due to mechanical malfunction.
2. The said HSVP official, in his official capacity, gave a verbal direction to the consumer to procure a new water meter and present it for inspection and certification at the HSVP office, Kurukshetra. No written report of the malfunction was issued at that time, nor was any written assessment of past consumption initiated then.
3. Acting in good faith and in full compliance with the verbal direction of the HSVP official, the consumer procured a new meter at his own cost and presented it for inspection at the HSVP office on [date of inspection]. The new meter was approved and installed.
4. The current and prior bills are computed on readings drawn from the new, certified meter (Old 233 → 309 → 373 KL).
5. Notwithstanding the above, an arrears amount of ₹4,556.00 has been silently rolled into the consumer's account, with no accompanying written assessment order, no disclosed methodology, and no citation of the tariff clause under which it is levied.

B.Grounds of Objection

1. Absence of a Written Assessment Order. A demand for back-calculated consumption arising out of an admitted meter fault is not sustainable as a mere line item on a routine bill. It must be supported by a separate, reasoned, written assessment order issued by the competent authority, identifying the period of malfunction, the basis of estimation, and the clause of the Tariff Manual invoked. No such order has been served upon the consumer.
2. Verbal Communication Insufficient as Notice. The original communication regarding meter malfunction was made verbally by HSVP staff. While the consumer acted upon it in good faith, a verbal communication cannot be the sole record of an event that subsequently gives rise to a financial demand. The administrative file on the HSVP side must contain a written meter-fault report, a meter testing report from the inspection, and an assessment based thereon. None of these has been shared with the consumer.
3. Fault of the Department, Liability on the Consumer. The metering equipment is the property and responsibility of HSVP. Any malfunction of that equipment is a departmental failure. To impose retrospective financial liability on the consumer for a period during which HSVP's own equipment was admittedly defective — without first establishing, in writing, the basis on which such liability is computed — offends the cardinal rule that no person shall be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem).
4. Violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. No charge or levy may be collected except by the authority of law. The arrears in question carry no transparent legal anchor on the face of the bill. The consumer is therefore unable to verify whether the demand is authorised by the HUDA Tariff Manual, and if so, by which clause and on what computation. Until disclosed, the demand stands un-reasoned and voidable.
5. Deficiency in Service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. An opaque, un-reasoned billing demand against a consumer of an essential public utility constitutes a deficiency in service, and is amenable to the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra.

C.Reliefs Sought

In light of the above, the consumer respectfully requests that the Department:

1. Furnish, in writing within thirty (30) days, a copy of the meter-fault detection report recorded by HSVP staff, the meter testing report issued at the time of new-meter inspection, and the written assessment order on which the ₹4,556.00 arrears is based.
2. Disclose the specific clause of the HUDA Tariff Manual under which the back-calculation has been performed, along with the full computation worksheet showing the average consumption applied, the period of back-billing, and the rationale for both.
3. Place the recovery of the disputed ₹4,556.00 and any further surcharge thereon on hold pending final disposal of this objection. The current cycle's fresh charges of ₹723.97 (water ₹603.31 + sewerage ₹120.66) are not in dispute; kindly confirm the modality by which they may be remitted without prejudice and without being adjusted against the disputed arrears.
4. If, on examination, the back-billing is found to have been raised without the procedural foundations required by the Tariff Manual, adjust the disputed sum in full against future bills and waive any surcharge accrued thereon.

D.Reservation of Rights

The consumer expressly reserves the right, in the event of non-response within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, or in the event of a response that does not address the grounds raised herein, to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra, and / or the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana under its writ jurisdiction, for appropriate relief — including but not limited to quashing of the disputed demand, costs of litigation, and compensation for deficiency in service. This letter shall stand as a record of pre-litigation notice for those purposes.

An early, reasoned, and written response is requested. The consumer remains willing to attend the HSVP office in person, on appointment, to inspect the relevant records and, if appropriate, to settle the matter amicably.

Yours faithfully,