WP(C)/13254/2025 of SULAIMAN N.K., Vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NORTH, on 2 April 2025

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated to recover the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner in terms of Ext.P8 agreement.

2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 agreement has not been executed by him and it is an agreement forged in his name and regarding which, the petitioner has preferred a police complaint. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has conducted a Cable TV services only in Melmuri Village while Ext.P8 agreement relates to poles situated in Pookottur Village. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner preferred Ext.P14 before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P14 in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that till such time orders are passed in Ext.P14 representation, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader, considering the limited relief now sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P14 representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time orders are passed in Ext.P14, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain suspended. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE Scl/

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13254/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit – P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07/03/2007 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit – P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE DATED 01/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit – P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 11 NOTICE DATED 31/01/2025 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit – P4 THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24/02/2025 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT (THE RTI ACT, FOR SHORT) IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit – P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04/03/2025 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit – P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/12/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit – P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/12/2010 FORGED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER, A COPY OF WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit – P8 A TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT NO.5/2011-12 DATED 13/12/2011 FORGED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit – P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29/07/2024 BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

Exhibit – P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DATED 29/07/2024 Exhibit – P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANJERI POLICE STATION Exhibit – P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT Exhibit – P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT Exhibit – P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/03/2025 RAISING DISPUTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT