IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35413 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) II, K S E B, VAIDYUTHI BYHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, S.C, K.S.E.B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVNANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, KRISHNAN VILAKATHU VEEDU, MITHRUMALA, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, KALLARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 541. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35413 of 2010 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent holding that recovery of the amount that was due from the second respondent to Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited and Anandapuram Co-operative Society Limited, from out of the DCRG that was due to him was irregular. This finding has been arrived at on the basis that even the petitioner had no case that the second respondent had given any consent for making recovery of any amount from his DCRG towards his liability to the aforesaid Co-operative Societies. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has produced Ext.P4, which is stated to be the consent issued by the second respondent and contends that it was on the strength of Ext.P4 that the recovery was effected. However, a reading of Ext.P5, the impugned order, shows that the Lok Ayukta has W.P.(C) No.35413/10 : 2 : proceeded as though the complainant has not executed any such consent. In fact, petitioner also did not have such a case before the Lok Ayukta. 3. Therefore, in my view if the petitioner has a case that Ext.P4 consent was executed by the second respondent, and that, it was on the basis of Ext.P5 that the recovery in question has been effected, this is a case where the petitioner should seek review of Ext.P5 for which powers have been conferred on the Lok Ayukta under Rule 3(1)(f) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Powers of Civil Court) Rules, 1999. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek review of Ext.P4, I dispose of this writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks