IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13017 of 2006(Y)
1. K.THOMAS VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
3. THE CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
5. THE SENIOR MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.MANHU, SC, SIDCO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/07/2009
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
....................................................................
W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2006
....................................................................
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 which is a revised proceedings
by which the original sale price of Rs.14 lakhs and odd for the two
industrial sheds allotted to the petitioner was revised and refixed at
Rs.5,06,527/-. The sheds were allotted to the petitioner in 1992 on hire
purchase basis. However, petitioner did not make any payment of hire
charges and consequently the allotment was terminated on 25.3.1997.
When petitioner challenged the same, this court directed the SIDCO to
consider outright sale of the property to the petitioner based on the norms
then prevailed. Based on the said judgment, petitioner was given option to
purchase the said property for Rs.1,40,738/-. However, Government
constituted a Committee for reconsideration of purchase price and in the
revised proceedings, the property was offered to the petitioner at a price less
than over Rs.9 lakhs of the original price. It is this order that is under
challenge in this W.P.(C).
2. The petitioner’s case is that the revised price fixed is against norms
and the same is not correct. I do not think there is any justification for this
2
court to interfere with Ext.P4 because the area involved is 821.69 sq. metres
which is around 21 cents of land and two sheds thereon. The difference
between original price fixed by the SIDCO and the price fixed by the
Committee is over Rs.9 lakhs. If petitioner has no interest in the matter,
petitioner can opt out of the deal. I do not find any merit in the W.P. and
the same is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is given six weeks’
time to pay balance amount with interest in accordance with Ext.P4, if he
wants to take over the property.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms