Disposed

K.M.Abdul Gafoor v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2021WP(C)/693/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a review petition filed by an Assistant Executive Engineer of KSEB against a writ judgment. The Court directed KSEB to purchase materials and execute underground cabling works, departing from Board orders to resolve a dispute between consumers and the utility. Respondents were ordered to deposit amounts.

What did the court decide?

KSEB directed to purchase cables and materials and carry out works; respondents to deposit amount within one week; works to be completed within two weeks thereafter.

K.M.Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 693 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18954/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER:

¶8

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, KALADY P.O, PIN683574.

¶9

BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ADV. STANLEY SEBASTIAN K. AGED 55 YEARS S/O K.A.SEBASTIAN, KOLANCHERY HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O, PIN-683574, KALADY.

¶12

2 SHERLY DAVID AGED 57 YEARS W/O DAVID AND D/O K.A SEBASTIAN, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O, NEAR RC CHURCH, IRINGALAKKUDA, PIN680702. 3 DR. JOJO SEBASTIAN AGED 71 YEARS D/O K.A.SEBASTIAN, HOUSE NO.X/125, TIPPU SULTHAN ROAD, THRUPPAYAR, VALAPPADU P.O, THRISSUR-680567.

¶13

4 NEYA JOY AGED 24 YEARS D/O JOY SEBASTINA, C/O STANLEY SEBASTIAN K., KOLANCHERY HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O, PIN-683574,

RP No. 693 of 2021

KALADY.

5 SHAJI SEBASTIAN.K. AGED 60 YEARS S/O K.A.SEBASTIAN, HOUSE NO.52/851-A, KOLANCHERY HOUSE, THOTTATHIL BUILDING, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682019.

¶18

6 ANTONY PANIKULAM AGED 71 YEARS PANIKULAM HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA EAST, PUTHENCHIRA P.O, THRISSUR-680682.

¶19

7 JOLY SEBASTIAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O K.A.SEBASTIAN, KOLANCHERY HOUSE, 26/2760-J, ABOVE KSFE, PANDIT KURUPAN ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI682013.

¶20

8 SHEEBA JOSEPH AGED 59 YEARS

¶21

W/O JOSEPH VARKEY AND D/O K.A.SEBASTIAN, PONOLIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY P.O, PERUMBAVOOR-683541.

¶22

9 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

¶23

OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶24

10 JOLLY K.S. S/O ESTHAPPANOSE, KOLANCHERY HOUSE, NETTINAMPILLI, MANICKAMANGAL P.O, KALADY-683574.

¶25

BY ADVS.

¶26

K.SUNILKUMAR

¶27

DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶28

SRGP.DR.THUSHARA JAMES

¶29

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

RP No. 693 of 2021

¶31

¶32

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶33

R.P. No. 693 of 2021

¶34

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2021

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This review petition seeks for reviewing the judgment in WP(C)No.18954 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021. In the said judgment it was directed that if the petitioners in the writ petition deposit

¶37

the amounts over and above Rs.61,247/- for drawing of underground cables, the respondent Board shall carry out the work within two weeks.

¶38

Now the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board has come up in review, the learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that as per the existing KSEB orders, underground cables and other related equipment are to be purchased by the consumers themselves and that once the materials are purchased by the consumers, works will be carried out under the supervision of the KSEB officials. The grievance of the review petitioner is that by virtue of the judgment under review, this Court directed the review petitioner to carry out the

¶39

RP No. 693 of 2021

¶40

¶41

work which will include purchase of materials and the said direction is against the Board orders.

¶42

I have heard the learned Counsel for the review petitioner as well as the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel Adv.Arun Kumar A. submitted that though petitioners in the writ petition had approached the KSEB officials with the demand draft, the same was not accepted on account of the present review petition.

¶43

This Court has already directed the works to be carried

¶44

out by the KSEB. There was admittedly a tug of war between the writ petitioners and the third respondent in the writ petition. Though the dispute between them have been reconciled to a large extent by the orders of this Court, it may not be proper to direct the consumers themselves to purchase the materials for carrying out the underground cabling in the instant case. The Board orders have been issued only for the purpose of practicality and the same need not defer this Court from passing appropriate direction in particular cases.

¶45

In such circumstances, I am of the view that as a

¶46

departure from the Board orders, it is essential that, in order to bring to rest the dispute in the present case, the KSEB itself,

¶47

RP No. 693 of 2021

¶48

¶49

through its officials purchase the underground cables as well as other materials required for laying the underground cable in this particular case. This judgment shall be treated as sufficient authority for the review petitioner to purchase the necessary underground cables and other materials for carrying out the underground cabling works as directed in the judgment in WP(C)No.18954 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021.

¶50

The respondents 1 to 8 in this review petition shall deposit the amount within one week from today and the review petitioner

¶51

shall carry out the works within two weeks thereafter.

¶52

The review petition is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

AJ/22.10.2021

RP No. 693 of 2021

APPENDIX OF RP 693/2021

¶60

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶61

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2021 IN WPC NO.18954/2021.

K.M.Abdul Gafoor v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Abdul Gafoor v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.I.Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

S.Ambrose and Company, Vs the General Manager

M.P.Prasanna Kumar @ Prasannan Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

Sambasiva Sarma K. Vs Kerala Cricket Association (Kca)

Kuriakose K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mathai Vs State of Kerala