IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24988 of 2009(P)
1. M/S.JAISHREE DYE-CHEM PRIVATE LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,
3. MR.JAYACHANDRAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :28/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). No. 24988 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of August 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 is in possession of a land allotted by the District
Industrial Centre, in the Industrial Development area at
Kanjikode. It is engaged in the manufacture of textile dyes,
whitening agents and pigments. Ext.P1 shows that apart from
the person who has signed and verified the pleadings, there is
another Director. Third respondent is one of the brothers of a
Director. Third respondent, is not otherwise associated with the
Company, according to the petitioner.
2. It is contended that the Company has put up 4 buildings
in the land having an extent of 1.10 acres alloted to it. Company
is functional. While so, on the allegation that no manufacturing
activities are taking place in the factory and that the land alloted
has not been utilized and on the basis of a site inspection, by
Ext.P7 the General Manager, District Industries Centre ordered
resumption of the land. This is followed by Ext.P8, a
W.P.(C). No. 24988 OF 2009
2
communication addressed to the third respondent requiring him
to remove the assets of the land within 15 days. Exts. P7 and P8
have been challenged in the writ petition.
3. When the matter came up for admission, I took note of
Ext.P9 representation submitted by the Director of the petitioner
inter alia pointing out that the order of resumption is without
notice to the allottee and the third respondent is not competent
to represent the petitioner Company. The order of resumption is
therefore vitiated for the reason that it has been passed without
hearing the competent person.
4. I heard Mr. V.Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel
and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. P.Narayanan on
this aspect.
5. I am of the view that it is appropriate that the question
of resumption for non utilization of the land allotted should be
reconsidered with notice to the affected persons. In these
circumstances, notice has not been issued to the third
respondent in this writ petition, since at any rate he cannot have
any grievance as regards the continuance of operation by the
petitioner, I take note of the fact that petitioner has asserted in
W.P.(C). No. 24988 OF 2009
3
Ext.P9 that the third respondent has no association with the
petitioner Company.
6. Accordingly, Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside. The second
respondent shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
detailing the grounds for resuming possession of the plot allotted
to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be given three weeks time to
submit it’s objections.
7. Second respondent shall conduct fresh site inspection
with notice to the petitioner and the petitioner shall give the
name and address of the Director who is competent to represent
the petitioner, in a representation to be submitted along with the
copy of the judgment. Fresh orders shall thereafter be passed by
the second respondent after hearing the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/