IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10875 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.K.RABIYA, W/O.MUHAMMED SADIQ, SADIQ NIVAS, G.H.ROAD, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KONDOTTY-673 638. 3. THE ASST.ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), KOZHIKODE. 5. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, KSEB, GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032, REP.BY SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1TO3&5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10875 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's husband was running an SSI unit from 1977. Petitioner submits that in 2001, the Board issued a bill for Rs.4,33,635/-. Although the amount was subsequently reduced and Rs.3,85,950 was demanded, her husband could not pay the amount. Finally, he went abroad in search of employment and according to the petitioner, he is presently working as a driver. In the absence of her husband, petitioner pursued the matter by filing a complaint before the 5th respondent and a copy is produced as Exts.P2 and P3. According to the petitioner, these were heard by the 5th respondent in April 2009 and orders are awaited. In the meanwhile, the properties belonging to the petitioner's husband were brought for sale in pursuance to the provisions contained in the Revenue Recovery Act and Ext.P5 is the notice issued for this purpose. It was at that stage the writ petition has been filed. 2. At the time of admission, this Court by order dated 03/04/2009, stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 on WPC 10875/09 :2 : condition that the petitioner remits Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the said condition has been complied with. 3. On hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the respondents, what emerges is that the 5th respondent has taken cognizance of Exts.P2 and P3 complaints made by the petitioner and parties have already been heard. 4. In my view, at this stage, it was premature to have taken coercive action and brought the property of the petitioner's husband for sale. Fairness requires that the sale should be deferred until the 5th respondent decides on the complaints referred to above. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that until the 5th respondent renders its decision on Exts.P2 and P3, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp