IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 28459 of 2007(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SREEKUMAR, S/O. NEELAKANDAKURUP, AGED 33 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, WE FOUR SATVISION, CLASSIC BAZAR, ATHANI. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALUVA. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28459/2007 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.5.2000. EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.10.20000 OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB. EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.1.2001 OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER. EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF the APPLICATION COUNTER SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION ALUVA. EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.29570/05 DATED 26-10-2005. EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.7.2007 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.8.07. EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.9.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 18.10.02. EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.47/05 DATED 25.2.05. EXT.P11-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LAVI/11243/07 OF THE SECRETARY, KSEB DATED 29.11.2008. K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 28459 of 2007-K ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the K.S.E.B. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim order, a decision has been taken on 29.11.2008. In the interim order this court has directed that the cables of the petitioner shall not be dismantled provided the petitioner remits the normal rate of pole rental from July, 2000. According to the petitioner, petitioner has remitted the amounts. According to the standing counsel it is not paid. 2. The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed pursuant to the interim order. It is made clear that if the petitioner has not remitted the pole rental as directed by this court it will be open to the respondents to take such steps in accordance with law including dismantling of poles. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS