IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 2476 of 2007 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21984/2005 DATED 21/12/2006 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION (SOUTH), KSEB, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSE BOARD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- M/S. RPG CABLES LTD., BHAVANI MANSION, 2ND FLOOR, NO.3, 4TH LANE, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034, REP. BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER, K.V.RAMASWAMY. BY ADV. SMT.K.USHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2476 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21984 of 2005 dated 21st December, 2006. In fact, in the said order, the learned Single Judge has not done anything else except to follow the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thressiamma Chirayil v. State of Kerala (ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 61). 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the facts situation in the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent herein was something different from the other connected matters which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, if that is so, the appellants have to file an appropriate petition before appropriate forum for appropriate relief. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submits that by virtue of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, the contesting respondent is demanding for refund of the entry tax collected by the appellants. In our opinion, this W.A.No.2476 of 2007 2 submission is not at all available to the appellants to be canvassed in this writ appeal. As we have already noticed, the learned Single Judge has not expressed any opinion in the matter other than to follow the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court. 4. In that view of the matter, the relief sought for by the appellants in this writ appeal cannot be granted by us. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns