IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No.1635 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20946/2008 Dated 14/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, TELEPHONE REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM, TELECOM DISTRICT, LIC BUILDING COMPLEX, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. OMANA R., H.NO.6-104, NEERAZHTHALA PUTHENVEEDU THERUVU, KULAPPADA, UZHAMALAKKAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGADU TALUK NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE, UZHAMALAKKAL, NEDUMANGADU. R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1635 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The proceedings initiated for recovery of telephone bills from respondent No.1 at the instance of the appellant was the subject matter of the complaint filed before the Permanent Lok Adalath, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent No.1 had challenged the recovery proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the telephone bill in the said complaint. 2. The appellant appeared before the Lok Adalath and contended that the complaint was not maintainable inasmuch as the Lok Adalath did not have jurisdiction to entertain the same, particularly, in view of the provisions contained in Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The appellant requested the Lok Adalath to consider the question of maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue. However, the Lok Adalath adjourned the case with a direction that all issues will be considered together. The said order of the Lok Adalath, copy of which was produced as Ext.P8 was called in question in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Single Judge observing that it was not desirable to pass such piecemeal orders in matters like this, disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all his W.A.No.1635/2008 -2- contentions before the Lok Adalath. 4. It is contended by the appellant that the learned Judge ought to have allowed the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition and granted a declaration that Permanent Lok Adalath has no jurisdiction to entertain matters pertaining to Revenue Recovery Act.. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order and other relevant materials on record, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Judge. In our view, the learned Judge was justified in declining to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, while reserving the right of the appellant to raise all his contentions before the Lok Adalath. Therefore, while confirming the order of the learned Judge, we dismiss this writ appeal. 6. We request the Permanent Lok Adalath to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS