IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20998 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSEPH JACOB, AGED 78, S/O.LATE M.P.JOSEPH, E.H.T. LINE CONTRACTOR, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, PINIDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (TRANSMISSION SOUTH) K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004. 3. THE MEMBER, TRANSMISSION, K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004. SRI.T.R.RAJAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20998/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/8/2004 IN WPC NO.12625/2004. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 13.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 18.2.11 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 16.4.11 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/11/1989 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 30.4.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DT 12.7.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20998 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a contractor of the respondents for the construction and drawing of a 220 KV D.C line from Sabarigiri to Edamon. According to the petitioner, in view of the terms of Ext.P5, since the work could not be completed within the contract period for reasons not attributable to him, but attributable to the Board, he was entitled to seek revision of rates. It is stated that though he had made a claim for revision of rates on that basis, the same was not settled and therefore he submitted Exts.P6 and P7 before the 1st respondent. A decision on the representation has not been taken so far. That led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents also. Having regard to the pendency of the aforesaid representation and without expressing anything on the merits of the contentions raised, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exts.P6 and P7. This shall be WPC No. 20998/11 :2 : done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp