IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 752 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30002/2008 Dated 31/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/3RD PARTY --------------------------------- PADMANABHAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, THANISSERY HOUSE, THALAPILLI TALUK, PANJAL, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------- 1. T.SREEDHARAN, THANISSERY HOUSE, PYMKULAM P.O., CHERUTHURUTHY. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. VYDYUTHIBHAVAN, THRISSUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHERUTHURUTHY. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R1 SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2,4 & 5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.A.No. 752 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The appellant is not a party in the writ petition. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 , the proceedings of the Assistant Engineer with respect to shifting of an electric connection, pertaining to which there existed a dispute between the appellant herein and the first respondent, who are brothers. On an earlier occasion, in a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent this Court passed Ext.P2 Judgment. Appellant herein was 6th respondent in that writ petition. Ext.P4 is issued on the basis of directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment. It is evident that the appellant also participated in the proceedings before the Assistant Engineer, which culminated in Ext.P4. It is evident that the 1st respondent is seeking relaxation from some of the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4. But, W.A.No.752/2010 2 the appellant was not made party in the writ petition. It is brought to our notice that during pendency of the writ petition, an impleading petition was filed by the 1st respondent seeking to incorporate the appellant as additional respondent. But, the writ petition was disposed of without allowing the impleading petition and without notice to the appellant. From the submissions made, we are prima facie convinced that appellant is also a person having interest in the subject matter of the writ petition, and he will be a person affected by its outcome. 2. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and to remit the matter for fresh disposal by the Single Judge. The learned Single Judge may allow the impleading petition if any pending and may afford opportunity to the appellant to contest the writ petition. 3. In the result the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition may be disposed of by the Single Judge in terms of the observations contained hereinabove. W.A.No.752/2010 3 The Registry is directed to post the writ petition before the learned Single Judge at the earliest. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk