IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8810 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JIMMY ANTONY PATHIPPALLIL, S/O.ANTONY, RESIDING AT PARAMBA, P.O.PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 2. BHARATHI AMMA, PULLATTUKUNNEL, D/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PARAMBA, P.O.PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 3. GOWRY AMMA, PULIAT KUNNEL, W/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PARAMBA, P.O.PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 4. ABRAHAM MANGALASSERY, S/O.MATHAYI, RESIDING AT CHATTAMALA P.O. PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 5. K.T.JOSEPH PUTHENPURAKKAL, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT CHATTAMALA, P.O.PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 6. THOMAS CHAMPLAVIL, RESIDING AT CHATTAMALA P.O. PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 7. JOSEPH VETTIKKATHADATHIL, RESIDING AT CHATTAMALA, P.O.PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 8. MATHEW K.T. KAPPALAMAKKAL, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT CHATTAMALA P.O.PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. 9. ROSAMMA KAPPIYANGAL, W/O.DEVASSIA(LATE) RESIDING AT CHATTAMALA, P.O.PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. WPC : 8810 OF 2008 10. ISSAC PUTHANPURAKKAL, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT CHATTAMALA P.O. PARAMBA, MALOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, BHEEMANADY ELECTRICAL SECTION, NILESHWAR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., NILESHWAR SUB DIVISION, NILESHWAR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KANHANGAD. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARAGOD. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHANAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8810 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners’ stand is that they have executed minimum guarantee agreement and have paid required charges, however, that the respondents have taken the stand that the petitioners’ application cannot be considered, since the scheme has been discontinued. The 3rd respondent is also stated to be not acting in terms of the request of the 1st respondent. Under such circumstances, it is directed that the 4th respondent will call for the entire files in relation to the issue, if the petitioners or any of them make appropriate request and the claim of the petitioners shall be answered one way or the other, stating reasons, within an outer limit of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHANAN, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 6246 OF 2008 2