IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4895 of 2008(G) PETITIONER: ------------ K.M.IBRAHIM, CONVENER, AD-HOC COMMITTEE, ACTION COUNCIL, MATTAKKADU JANAKEEYA JALASECHANA PADATHI SOCIETY, MATTAKKADU, ERATTUPETTA - 686 121, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KARUKANCHERY HOUSE, NADAKKAL KARA, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DY.TAHSILDAR (R.R) MEENACHIL, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, CIVIL STATION, PALAI. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, ERATTUPETTA P.O. PIN - 686 121, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. V.P.EBRAHIM, VAZHAMATTOM, NADAKKAL P.O PIN - 686 124. ERATTUPETTA (FOUNDER SECRETARY, MATTAKADU JANAKEEYA JALASECHANA PADHATHI SOCIETY, ERATTUPETTA). BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ANIL - STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4895 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the convener of an ad--hoc committee for protecting the interests of the Mattakkadu Janakeeya Jalasechana Padhathi Mattakkadu, Erattupetta. Apparently, the project was for the benefit of 350 families., with inadequate facilities for drinking water. It seems that each one of the prospective consumers/beneficiaries had contributed funds for payment of the electricity charges. There was default in payment of the same and therefore, electricity connection for the project was disconnected more than once. But, in the meanwhile, an ad hoc committee was constituted for protecting the interests of the beneficiaries and it further seems that the petitioner was elected as the Convener. According to the petitioner, this was only for a short period. Still, the payment of the electricity charges were not properly made. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was the convener, Ext.P5 notice was issued. In the meanwhile, there was a meeting under the auspices of the Deputy Collector and certain decisions were taken as evidenced by Ext.P6. The decisions were not implemented. According to the petitioner, he has approached this court with this writ petition challenging the notice Ext.P5. W.P.(C).NO.4895/08 :: 2 :: 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. In my view, since there was a meeting amongst the beneficiaries and the persons, who were earlier entrusted with the responsibility of collecting the electricity charges and making it over to the new committee, it is appropriate that an officer at the level of the District Collector considers the grievance highlighted against Ext.P5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to look into Ext.P5 and take a decision in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and any other affected party, including any person who is a signatory to Ext.P5. Enforcement of Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance, till such a decision is taken. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//