IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2590 of 2011(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.J.SHAH AND CO.LTD,NEAR WADALA CONTAINER YARD,MAHUL ROAD,ANTOP HILL,MUMBAI-400037 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, TEJASWINI R.SHAH. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,REP;BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2590 of 2011 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a contractor, who was engaged by the respondent Board at its Kakkad Hydro Electric Project. There were several disputes between the parties, which led to the appointment of a One Man Commission. The report submitted by the Commission was challenged before this Court in various writ petitions and O.P.No.31361/1999 was the case filed by the petitioner. That Original Petition, along with connected cases, was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, directing the Board to reconsider the matters mentioned in the concluding portion of the judgment. 2. Against the aforesaid judgment, the Board filed W.A.No.1688/2004. Along with connected appeals, the Writ Appeal was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the Board to implement the directions in Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated that the petitioner also had filed W.A.No.1009/2004, W.P.(C) No.2590/2011 : 2 : which was also disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. According to the petitioner, despite the directions in the aforesaid judgments, without complying with the same, the Board has now issued Ext.P6 notice, informing that the equipments mortgaged by the petitioner will be sold for realising the dues claimed by the Board. It is challenging Ext.P6 notice, the writ petition is filed. 3. As already seen, the main complaint of the petitioner is that the directions of this Court, as contained in the judgments mentioned above, are not complied with and, therefore, it is argued that the steps now initiated by the Board as per Ext.P6 are premature. 4. Standing Counsel for the respondent Board was heard. He submits that this Court has already directed the Board to comply with the directions in the judgment, as per the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34557/2010. It is stated that accordingly, the Board has decided to issue notice to the contractors and decide the issue as directed by this Court. W.P.(C) No.2590/2011 : 3 : 5. Admittedly, the Board has not complied with the directions in Exts.P1 and P3 judgments. If that be so, the proceedings now initiated by Ext.P6 are premature. It is on that basis, W.P(C) No.34557/2010 was also disposed of. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is also disposed of, directing that the Board will comply with the directions of this Court as contained in Exts.P1 and P3 by issuing notice to the petitioner and hearing their representative. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Until the above process is completed, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 will be kept in abeyance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge