IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 29609 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.CHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,AGED 49 YEARS SHARANYA NIVAS, PACHALLOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, B.S.N.L. BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBU ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER (PLANNING), B.S.N.L. BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBU ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, B.S.N.L., KARIMANNOOR, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PHONES), B.S.N.L., KARIMANNOOR, THODUPUZHA. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR. C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,B.S.N.LTD. MR. K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 29609 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. 98301/98/99/4A DATED 18.01.2002 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO. 1/06 DATED 1609.2006 EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO. 2/O6 DATED 16.092006 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTTER DATED 08.05.2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.06.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 29609 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th June , 2011 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that, Exts. P1 and P2 bills were in fact passed for payment much earlier, which however did not get materialized in view of the subsequent turn of events, particularly, the stand taken by the concerned respondents, stating that the petitioner produced forged documents, which made the petitioner to apply for the copies of the relevant documents by resorting to the remedy under the Right to Information Act 2005. Accordingly, the petitioner has been served with the copy of the relevant proceedings, which has been produced as Ext. P12, along with the reply affidavit dated 14.12.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext. P12 shows that the earlier documents produced by the petitioner were genuine and as such, there is no question of any forgery and the petitioner is entitled to have the relief sought for. 2. The said submission is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who submits that, Exts. P2 and P3 have got nothing to do with Ext. P12, simultaneously pointing out that the matter will be considered with reference to Ext. P12. W.P. (C) No. 29609 of 2009 : 2 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondents to have the issue considered with reference to Ext. P12. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider and finalize the issue forming the subject matter of this writ petition with reference to Ext. P12 and also with regard to the claim to have refund of the security deposit. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, passing appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copies Exts. P2, P3 & P12 before the first respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd