IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2590 of 2011(W)
1. R.J.SHAH AND CO.LTD,NEAR WADALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,REP;BY
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA STATE
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
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