IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19930 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJEESH.S, CHITTETTU HOUSE, CHAMPAKKARA PO, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,CHENGANACHERRY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KARUKACHAL-680 540 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19930 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents not to dismantle the cable drawn through the poles belonging to the Board. (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the arrears of pole rental and other charges with respect to the 592 poles covered by Ext.P1 in 24 equal monthly instalments. (iii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case; and (iv) Award the cost of this proceedings to the petitioner from the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after issuance of Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner has effected payment of a sum of nearly Rs.1.88 lakhs as borne by Ext.P4 receipts. This being the position, the demand raised by the respondent is quite exorbitant and not in conformity with the actual facts and figures. The petitioner is stated as constrained to approach this Court because of the coercive steps intended to be pursued by the respondents including by way of dismantling the cable. 2 WP(C) No. 19930/2010 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits on instructions that, the payment effected by the petitioner vide Ext.P4 is not in respect of the charges payable with respect to the cause covered by Ext.P1. The learned counsel further submits that, by virtue of the terms of the agreement, the payment had to be effected in advance. The petitioner paid only a portion of the liability; that too belatedly and the amounts payable thereafter still subsists. Much leniency has already been shown to the petitioner and this being the position, no interference is warranted in this Writ Petition; submits the learned Standing Counsel. 4. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding liability in respect of the 592 poles covered by Ext.P1, which is stated as Rs.2,87,620/- as on 25.06.2010. The petitioner is directed to clear the said liability by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of this month, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 20th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in 3 WP(C) No. 19930/2010 a lump sum and such other measures in conformity with the terms of the contract. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc