IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 29502 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.K.OMANA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. LATE R.DIVAKARAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, KARAPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL SRI.GEORGEKUTTY JACOB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, TRIVANDRUM. R1&2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R3,4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NOS.50062/2002 & 8686/2003 IN O.P. NO.29502/2002 DISMISSED: 4.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.17.8.99 PASSED IN O.P. NO.21050/1999 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.29.3.2000 ISSUED BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KZOHIKODE TO THE PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.22.6.2000 PASSED IN O.P. NO.11787/2000 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P4: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.7.8.02 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. P5: TRUE COPY OF RR NOTICE DT.7.8.02 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.29502 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Even though O.P. is pending for the last five years, no counter or statement is filed by the respondents. It is seen from Ext.P3 that the amount claimed by KSEB from petitioner's late husband towards loss caused to it by serving as a Store Keeper was cancelled by this court vide the said judgment. If Ext.P3 judgment has become final, then the Board is not entitled to demand any compensation from petitioner's late husband and in turn adjustment against his entitlements. However, it is seen from Ext.P5 that what is demanded is arrears of current charges. It is not known how such huge arrears of current charges can fall due on petitioner's husband. The O.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the third respondent to clarify as to what is the liability sought to be recovered. If it is the very same demand that is cancelled by this court vide Ext.P3 judgment, he will immediately recall the recovery proceedings. If it is any other liability or arrears of current charges as claimed, then the entire details should be furnished to the petitioner before proceeding with recovery for the petitioner to challenge it, if she so desires. The third respondent is directed to issue 2 communication to the second respondent within one month from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The second respondent is directed to proceed for recovery only if third respondent advises recovery after giving details thereof. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms