IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 11454 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.PRASAD KUMAR OVERSEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION VAKATHANAM,CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.REENA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM,) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1-3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 14-10-1997 FILED BY THE KSEB IN OS.89/97 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-8-2004 IN IA.2443 OF 2004 IN RFA 89/03 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY of the NOTICE DT. 8-2-2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ WP(C). No. 11454 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The grievance voiced by the writ petitioner who was 5th defendant in the suit is that even though regular first appeal No.89 of 2003 filed by the appellant jointly with the Kerala State Electricity Board is pending before this court, the Board has issued Ext.P3 initiating steps for recovery of 1/5th portion of the compensation amount decreed under the judgment which is impugned in RFA. No. 89 of 2003. We find that in RFA. 89 of 2003, absolute stay has been granted by this court against execution of the decree in question. We are of the view that the Board is not justified in issuing Ext.P3 and initiating proceedings immediately against the writ petitioner. We quash Ext.P3. However, we make it clear that quashment of Ext.P3 will not stand in the way of the Electricity Board initiating fresh proceedings against the WP(C). 11454/08 - 2 - petitioner after the final disposal of RFA No. 89 of 2003. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the contentions raised either in the writ petition or in the RFA. Post the RFA for hearing immediately after holidays. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-