The Principal General Manager vs C.Chandran on 30 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 208 of 2010(U)


1. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER,TELECOM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER(PLANNING)
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER(PHONES)

                        Vs



1. C.CHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 49 YARS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.KESAVAN KUTTY,SC,KVIC

                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :30/09/2010

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           R.P.No.208/2010 in W.P.(C) No.29609/2009-U
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010.

                                   O R D E R

This review petition is filed by the respondents in the writ petition.

The writ petitioner approached this Court seeking for a direction for

honouring the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2 bills. It was directed by

this Court to issue appropriate communication to the petitioner with regard

to the forms in which the bills have to be prepared and other documents, if

any, to be furnished by him. It was also directed that all facilities will be

given to him to take down the details from the M. Book also.

2. In the review petition, it is averred that the work order Ext.P1 is a

concocted and fabricated one and no other details are available in the office

of the review petitioners with regard to the works said to have been

executed by the petitioner and the original of Ext.P1 has not been produced

by the writ petitioner. It is further submitted that the bills are also

concocted which is disputed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

3. The writ petitioner has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that

the stand taken by the review petitioners now is not correct and all the

details are available with the office of the review petitioners herein.

rp 208/2010 2

4. Since the details regarding the execution of the work and issuance

of the work order itself are disputed in the review petition, evidently the

directions in the judgment cannot be complied with by the review

petitioners. The matter will have to be gone into in detail in the light of the

stand taken by the writ petitioner also.

In the above view of the matter, the review petition is allowed and the

judgment is recalled. Post the writ petition for hearing before the appropriat

court.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/