P.K.Omana vs The Village Officer on 4 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 29502 of 2002(K)


1. P.K.OMANA, AGED 55 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE

4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :04/01/2008

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                                O.P. No.29502 of 2002
                  ....................................................................
                   Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008.

                                         JUDGMENT

Even though O.P. is pending for the last five years, no counter or

statement is filed by the respondents. It is seen from Ext.P3 that the

amount claimed by KSEB from petitioner’s late husband towards loss

caused to it by serving as a Store Keeper was cancelled by this court vide

the said judgment. If Ext.P3 judgment has become final, then the Board is

not entitled to demand any compensation from petitioner’s late husband and

in turn adjustment against his entitlements. However, it is seen from

Ext.P5 that what is demanded is arrears of current charges. It is not known

how such huge arrears of current charges can fall due on petitioner’s

husband. The O.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the third respondent

to clarify as to what is the liability sought to be recovered. If it is the very

same demand that is cancelled by this court vide Ext.P3 judgment, he will

immediately recall the recovery proceedings. If it is any other liability or

arrears of current charges as claimed, then the entire details should be

furnished to the petitioner before proceeding with recovery for the petitioner

to challenge it, if she so desires. The third respondent is directed to issue

2

communication to the second respondent within one month from date of

receipt of copy of this judgment. The second respondent is directed to

proceed for recovery only if third respondent advises recovery after giving

details thereof.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms