IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 26678 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.M.PAREETH, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMADALY, KARIMAKKATTU HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RONALD PAUL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE VADAVUKODU-PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHENCRUZ.P.O. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B.DIVISION PUTHENCRUZ, PUTHENCRUZ .P.O.682 303. R1 BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR, R2 BY MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26678/2008-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DTD. 20/05/08 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 21/05/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DTD. 18/08/08 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12/08/08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 21/08/08 PREPARED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 26/08/08 SENT BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26678 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Read orders dated 5.10.2009 and 23.10.2009. There is no appearance for the petitioner. 2.In Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this Court in writ jurisdiction, the Electricity Board was directed to segregate the amounts that have to be paid by the petitioner for the period for which he was the licensee of the panchayat market. This Court stated as follows: “. . . . . . . . . . . . Since the bill in question has been given to the petitioner in May, 2008, what is necessary to be ascertained is whether this includes any period from 1.4.2008. This is a matter for the Electricity Board to verify and the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if any amount is due for the period from 1.4.2008, that will be paid. Counsel for the Electricity Board agrees that the WPC.26678/08 2 energy charges for the period from 1.4.2008 will be separately worked out and intimated to the panchayat. It is directed that once the energy charges for the period from 1.4.2008 is so intimated by the Board to the panchayat, it will be open to the panchayat to realise the same from the petitioner and if he does not make payment of such amount, it will be open to the panchayat to take steps for its realisation”. 3.With the aforesaid, the Electricity Board carried out its duties under that order and has intimated the panchayat accordingly. The panchayat was issued the demand. In this writ petition, the Electricity Board filed counter affidavit giving the details and split up of the segregation made. It was after noticing that counter affidavit that this Court issued the order dated 23.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner to file reply affidavit if he has anything to say. Nothing is on record. Having gone through the counter affidavit of the Electricity Board, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned WPC.26678/08 3 judgment and I am satisfied that the segregation has been made to the satisfaction of the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.1/12.