IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34557 of 2010 (T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- USHA CHARLES, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.LATE CHARLES C.GEORGE, XXVII/3204, KIZHAVANA ROAD, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-15. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 695004. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. BY SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34557 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's deceased husband was a contractor engaged by the respondents at the Kakkad Hydro Electric Project. There were disputes between the parties and that led to the appointment of a One Man Commission. The One Man Commission submitted its report, which came to be challenged before this Court in a batch of original petitions and among them OP 8334/2000 was filed by the petitioner's deceased husband. Those original petitions were disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment rendered on 3rd of February, 2004 and the Board was directed to reconsider the matters mentioned in the concluding portion of the said judgment. 2. Against the judgment in OP No.8334/2000, WA No.1595/04 was filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board and that appeal, along with the connected appeals, were disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the Board to implement the direction in Ext.P3 judgment. It is also pointed out that the WA filed by the petitioner's deceased husband was also disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. WPC No. 34557/10 :2 : The case of the petitioner is that despite the above, the Board did not implement the directions in Ext.P3 judgment and inspite of it, she has now been issued Ext.P7 notice informing that the equipments mortgaged by her husband will be sold for realising the dues claimed by the Board against the petitioner's deceased husband. It is challenging the aforesaid notice, the writ petition is filed. 3. The main complaint submitted by the petitioner is that her deceased husband has several monetary claims against the Board and that by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the Board to decide those issues. It is stated that the Board having not decided those claims, cannot proceed to realise its alleged dues by disposal of the equipments mortgaged by the petitioner's husband as proposed in Ext.P7. 4. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Although the learned Standing counsel for the Board made an attempt to sustain Ext.P7, he was not in a position to satisfy me that the directions in Ext.P3 judgment referred to above have been complied with by the Board. For that reason, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that, as at WPC No. 34557/10 :3 : present, the steps proposed by the Board in Ext.P7 are premature. 5. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That the Board shall carry out the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment affirmed in Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench, with notice to the petitioner and after hearing her or her representative. This the Board shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (2) It is directed that until the aforesaid exercise is completed, further proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P7 shall not be continued. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp