IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21535 of 2008(L)
1. C.T.N.AGRO & COIR PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL
3. THE PROJECT ENGINEER, INDUSTRIAL
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.21535 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P7.
Petitioner was allotted two acres of land at the Industrial Growth
Center, Cherthala for the purpose of setting up an Industrial Unit
for manufacturing Coir Tufted Mattings. Exhibit P2 is the order
confirming allotment and Exhibit P3 is the licence agreement.
Second schedule to the agreement, contains a specific programme
for commencing production, in terms of which, the petitioner ought
to have submitted an application for clearances, commencement of
the construction, completion of the installation of plant and
machinery and for commencement of commercial production.
Admittedly the schedule has not been complied with. According to
the respondents, in spite of Exhibits R2(a) and R2(b) notices dated
8/1/2008 ad 19/2/2008, there was no progress made by the
W.P.(C) No.21535 /2008
2
petitioner and therefore, the State level Project implementation
Committee, in their meeting held on 29/04/2008 decided to cancel
the land allotment and this was conveyed to the petitioner by
Exhibit P7. It is challenging this communication the writ petition is
filed.
2. Although, petitioner contends that Exhibits R2(a) and
R2(b) letters were not severed, the averment in the counter
affidavit to that effect is not disputed by any reply affidavit.
Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf.
3. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that there were two buildings in the land in
question and tenders were invited for demolishing and removing
the buildings belatedly. It is stated that therefore, he could not
apply for building permit or commence the construction at the site.
It is also stated that the petitioner has already applied for a building
permit and that Panchayath has directed them to produce original
W.P.(C) No.21535 /2008
3
records pertaining their title over the property in question. The
petitioner even submits that they have already made substantial
investments and will complete the procedural formalities and set
up the Industrial Unit, if they are given an opportunity.
4. In view of the admitted default committed in complying
with the Schedule fixed in the agreement, the respondents cannot
be faulted for the steps that they have taken. However, in view of
the anxiety shown by the petitioner to set up the industry, as they
originally committed to the respondent in Exhibit P3 licence
agreement, I am inclined to think that reasonableness require that
the petitioner should be given another opportunity to get the
licence agreement revived.
Therefore, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner
to set approach State Level Project Implementation Committee,
within two weeks from today with an appropriate application,
giving specific proposal and time frame and with an undertaking to
construct the Industrial Unit and commence commercial
W.P.(C) No.21535 /2008
4
production, in which case, State level Project Implementation
Committee shall consider the request and pass appropriate orders
thereon. It is directed that subject to the petitioner filing the
representation as above within two weeks from today, all further
proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P7 shall be kept in abeyance till a
decision is taken and is informed to the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm