Kerala High Court
Leelamma Jacob vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 2 June, 2009
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20903 of 2007(L)
1. LEELAMMA JACOB, W/O.LATE U.P.JACOB,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, KALPATTA.
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.D.PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/06/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 20903 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the widow of late U.P. Jacob. Petitioner claims that her husband has executed certain works on contract on behalf of the respondents in respect of which amounts are due to the late husband of the petitioner. On that claim the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to the respondents to verify the accounts/bills to see what amount is due to the late husband of the petitioner and to pay it forthwith.
ii) direct the respondents to pay all dues including the EMD to the petitioner which were pending for payment to the late husband of the petitioner.
iii) direct the respondents to pay 18%interest on the above sum along with the amount due."
2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board.
3. Even as per the averments of the petitioner the contract said to have been executed by the petitioner's husband was of the year 1999 and 2000. Petitioner's husband died only on 24.06.05. WPC : 20903/07 -:2:- Between 2000 and 2005 no claim whatsoever had been made by the late husband of the petitioner for payment of any amounts. Petitioner has not been able to produce any document whatsoever to prove that any amounts are pending payment to the late husband of the petitioner. Even assuming that any amounts are so due, that became due in 1999 and 2000 and this writ petition is filed in 2007. In fact Ext.P1 representation is filed only on 06.07.05. Added to that, this Court had on 31.07.07 directed disposal of Ext.P1 representation. Petitioner admits that orders have been passed on Ext.P1. Petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order. On all counts the writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb