IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15308 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A SURESH. S/O. ARJUNAN, PUTHANKANDATHIL HOUSE, KABINIGIRI, PADICHIRA VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, KALPETTA. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), AMBALAVAYAL. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, MANANTHAVADY. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 3 MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15308 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's grievance is regarding Ext.P2. It is stated that when arrears for the period from February, 2002 to June, 2003 were demanded that was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.8062/2005, it is stated that by Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the 1st respondent to issue detailed communication to the petitioner giving details of the disputed demand, withholding the recovery proceedings. It is stated that the said judgment has not been complied with so far, and that despite the same, by Ext.P2, recovery proceedings have been initiated allegedly towards recovery of arrears for the period from November, 2003 to August, 2008. It is aggrieved by the recovery proceedings so initiated, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before any further proceedings for realising the arrears is initiated, the 1st respondent ought to have complied with WP(C) No.15308/2009 -2- Ext.P1 judgment. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board has no case that the directions of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment has been complied with. But, he seeks to justify the impugned demand on the ground that certificate copy of the judgment has not been produced before the 1st respondent. 4. Irrespective of the fact that certified copy of Ext.P1 judgment has not been produced by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, fact remains that the judgment was rendered after hearing the respondents in Ext.P1 judgment also. A reading of Ext.P1 judgment shows that the 1st respondent therein was the first respondent in this writ petition as well. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have complied with the directions in Ext.P1 judgment before initiating recovery proceedings as per Ext.P2. In the light of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- That the 1st respondent shall comply with the directions of this Court as contained in Ext.P1 judgment. Until the said directions are complied with, further proceedings for recovery of the arrears, WP(C) No.15308/2009 -3- which is the subject matter of Ext.P1 judgment, and which is sought to be recovered by Ext.P2 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg