IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25585 of 2010(W)
1. B.CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR MANAGER (IE)
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/08/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRIJAGAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25585 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
………………………
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for
the respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P9 order of
the first respondent wherein a plot allotted to the
petitioner in Industrial Estate, Umayanalloor has been
ordered to be resumed on the ground that the petitioner
has not put the plot allotted, to the use for which the
same was allotted.
3. The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner has
been and is still using the plot for the purpose of running an
industry. In reply to Exhibit P4 show cause notice the
petitioner has submitted Exhibit P5. It is submitted by the
petitioner in Exhibit P5 that for small periods the unit have
to be temporarily closed and at other times the unit works
even during nights, which depends on the availability of
W.P.(C) No.25585 of 2010 2
work. According to the petitioner, he supplies oil
manufactured in the unit to other units in the very same
Industrial Estate itself and therefore the finding that the
petitioner had not used the plot for the purpose for which it
was allotted is totally unsustainable.
4. The learned standing counsel for the respondents
submits that it is after considering all the contentions of
the petitioner and finding the same to be incorrect,
Exhibit P9 order has been passed.
5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I
find that in Exhibit P5 reply to the show cause notice issued
to the petitioner, the petitioner has specifically stated that
the unit is presently functioning. It is stated therein that
the petitioner manufactures oil for one month continuously
in which case only they can make a profit. When the
petitioner goes out for sale of the processed oil the unit
would be temporarily closed. It is further stated in Exhibit
P5 that at other times during holidays also there would be
work in the unit and even during night when work is
W.P.(C) No.25585 of 2010 3
available. It is specifically stated that the petitioner
supplies oil manufactured in the unit to other units in the
industrial estate itself. It is further stated therein that on
some days the unit works during the whole night till
morning. On a reading of Exhibit P5, I do not find any
consideration whatsoever of the said averments in Exhibit
P5 reply. There is no mention as to why the petitioner’s
contention in Exhibit P5 cannot be accepted. Therefore, I
am satisfied that Exhibit P9 is unsustainable for non-
application of mind. Accordingly the same is quashed. The
first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in its
right perspective giving reasons as to why the petitioner’s
explanation is not acceptable. I make it clear that further
consideration shall be only after affording the petitioner an
opportunity of being heard.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
S.SIRIJAGAN,
JUDGE.
rkc