IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17613 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KONTHIKUTTY, ERULANKAL HOUSE, JOSEGIRI P.O., KOCHUPPU, PARAKKADAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. RAGHAVAN, ERULANKAL HOUSE, JOSEGIRI P.O., KOCHUPPU, PARAKKADAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BYJU KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IPDS), VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MEMBER, GENERATION, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1TO3 MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17613 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the father and son. They owned property in Survey No.27/1 of Baison Valley village having an extent of 16 cents. It is stated that the property is lying adjacent to a check dam constructed by respondents 1 to 3 at Kochuppu Parakkadavu Desam under the Panniyar Augmentation Scheme. 2. It is stated that on 28/11/1999, on account of a flash flood that occurred in Muthirapuzha river, the retaining wall of the dam collapsed resulting in sudden surge of water, causing extensive damage to the petitioners' agricultural land and crops. It is stated that at that stage, the respondents announced that they will grant adequate compensation to the agriculturists, who suffered damages due to the collapse of the dam. 3. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner filed Ext.P1 application, and that was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Two reasons are stated therein. The first is that the claim was belated and the second is WP(C) No.17613/2009 -2- that there was no report prepared by the KSE Board or the Revenue Authorities. Referring to Exts.P3 & P4, the petitioners submit that these communications issued by the Electricity Board itself make reference to the complaints, which were filed by the 2nd petitioner much earlier to Ext.P1. It is therefore stated that there is no substance in the finding that the claim made by the 1st petitioner was a belated one. 4. In so far as the 2nd reason as contained in Ext.P2 to the effect that no report was prepared by the KSEB authorities or the revenue authrities is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners makes reference to Exts.P5 to P10, which according to him show that reports have been prepared by both the aforesaid authorities. It is on this basis, Ext.P2 is sought to be challenged. 5. Prima facie, I feel substance in the contention raised. Having regard to the fact that Ext.P3 to P10 have not been referred to in Ext.P2, the matter needs to be considered. 6. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim raised in Ext.P1, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 and directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the claim for WP(C) No.17613/2009 -3- damages made in Ext.P1, in the light of Exts.P3 to P10 referred to above. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. 7. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg