IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33388 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE PEERMADE TEA COMPANY LIMITED, T.C. 12/76, “SILVER OAKS”, P.M.G.-PULIMOODU ROAD, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.T.S.RAJAGOPALAN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PEERMADE. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UPPTHARA. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33388 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P7. Petitioner is a Company which owns two tea estates. Case of the petitioner, inter alia, is as follows: Pursuant to a labour agitation, the managerial personnel of the petitioner were forced out and the labourers along with local tea mafia have taken control over the two estates, and the petitioner has not been able to gain control over the estates and is kept out. It is stated that rampant theft of green leaves and other estate properties is still going on. There is also reference to the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Ext.P4 is a revenue recovery notice stating, inter alia, that an amount of Rs.13,88,126/= is due as electricity charges among other charges. Petitioner challenged Ext.P4 in W.P.(C). No.21368/05 and by Ext.P5 Judgment, that Writ Petition was disposed of on 12.12.2005 wherein this Court directed that if the petitioner files WPC.33388/08 Y 2 a representation within two weeks, a decision will be taken by the third respondent Electricity Board within one month and Ext.P4 in relation to recovery of electricity charges was kept in abeyance. It is the further case of the petitioner that no further steps in pursuance of Ext.P5 Judgment could be taken for the reason that the sale had already taken place pursuant to Ext.P4, on 29.11.2005 and the Secretary of the Board had informed the petitioner that the dues had been realised. It was while so, in November 2008, two notices have been issued vide Exts.P6 and P7. Ext.P8 revealed that the sale had taken place on 29.11.2005 resulting in realisation of an amount of Rs.12,89,120/=. 2. A Statement has been filed by the first respondent, Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that after giving credit for the amount, amounts are due towards electricity charges. Learned counsel for petitioner would then submit that it was in the circumstances as stated that the petitioner could not avail of the benefit of Ext.P5 Judgment. He further submits that the petitioner will file a representation and that may be ordered to be WPC.33388/08 Y 3 considered. Learned standing counsel does not seriously oppose this prayer. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner prefers a representation before the third respondent within one week from today, the third respondent will consider and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the same. Till such time as a decision is taken as aforesaid, recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge