N.Balakrishnan vs The Kerala State Electricity … on 9 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1340 of 2010()


1. N.BALAKRISHNAN, `ANJALI',
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY,

4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

                For Respondent  :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :09/12/2010

 O R D E R
                         J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ &
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                          W.A.No. 1340 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                   Dated this the 9th December, 2010



                                  J U D G M E N T

J. Chelameswar, CJ.

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2010 in W.P.(C)

No.28104 of 2005, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred

the instant appeal. The Writ Petition is filed claiming that the

petitioner, who is a retired employee of the State of Kerala is

entitled to have his past service, rendered to the Kerala State

Electricity Board prior to joining the service of the State of

Kerala, reckoned for the purpose of calculating his retirement

benefits. The learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. The

operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“He also points out that the petitioner has not chosen to

disclose the said fact in the Writ Petition. In view of the

fact that the petitioner has suffered an adverse order

from the Kerala Lok Ayukta which was rendered as

early as on 28.06.2005 and that he has not chosen to

challenge the same, I do not think that the petitioner

can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, that too without

W.A.No. 1340 OF 2010
2

disclosing the fact that he had suffered an adverse order

from the Kerala Lok Ayukta. In the above

circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.”

2. The above extract is self explanatory and we do not see

any reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the

learned Judge as it is well settled principle of law that the parties

who approach this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with

clean hands, disclosing all the relevant facts which are within

their knowledge.

In the said circumstances, we do not see any merit in the

writ appeal and it is dismissed.

J. CHELAMESWAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk