IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10400 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DHARMARTHADHAYINI SABHA, KARIMBADAM KARA CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JINNAPPAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, KOLAM HOUSE, KARIMBADAM KARA, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, REVENUE BOARD BUILDING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENDAMANGALAM, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENDAMANGALAM. R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 10400 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the steps taken by the respondents for realisation of the arrears stated as due from the petitioner in respect of the electricity charges for different periods. 2. The basic contention raised in the Writ Petition is with regard to the plea of limitation stating that, the time barred debts cannot be sought to be recovered by resorting the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The said contention is strongly rebutted from the part of the respondents stating that, the petitioner had approached the Civil Court about a decade back and obtained interim orders and subsequently the suit was caused to be withdrawn only in the year 2002, while the requisition was made for taking steps to recover the due amount under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act well within time (15.04.2004). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the contents of reply affidavit submits that, the petitioner would like to have the matter considered in the next ‘Revenue Adalath’ and to have it settled accordingly. Reference is also made to Ext.P2 request in this regard. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, the 2 WP(C) No. 10400/2010 matter can be caused to be considered in the ‘Revenue Adalath’, so as to settle the issue once and for all. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is closed, permitting the petitioner to take up the matter before the Revenue Adalath, which is stated to be held in this month itself. The respondents shall take necessary steps to cause the matter to be considered and settled accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc