High Court Kerala High Court

Mulavarickal Group vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mulavarickal Group vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1642 of 2008(U)


1. MULAVARICKAL GROUP, MULAVARICKAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,

3. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES

4. ADDL. DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/01/2008

 O R D E R
                              ANTONY DOMINIC, J.




                       = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


                       W.P.(C) No. 1642  OF 2008 - U


                       = = = = = = = = = = = = = =




                 Dated this the 24 th day of January, 2008





                                 J U D G M E N T

Petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of paint and other

ancillary products. According to them, they in view of dearth of

space they had submitted Ext. P1 application for allotment of

additional 4 acres of industrial land. However, only 50 cents were

allotted to them by Ext. P2 order which on actual measurement was

found to be only 30 cents.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that while so, they

received Ext. P4, an order issued by the 3rd respondent cancelling

the allotment of additional land on the allegation that when an

inspection was conducted it was seen that the industrial unit already

set up by the petitioner was seen closed. Petitioner submits that the

industrial unit has not been closed and that it is still functioning.

3. Irrespective of the factual controversies involved in the

writ petition, I feel, the matter requires re-examination. This is for

W.P.(C) No.1642 OF 2008

– 2 –

the reason that when the allotment of the land that is already

allotted to the petitioner is sought to be cancelled, the petitioner is

entitled to be put on notice and should be given an opportunity to

explain its case. A reading of Ext. P4 and the averments in this writ

petition, shows that such an opportunity was not extended to the

petitioner. If that be so, Ext. P4 is to be held as one vitiated for

violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext. P4

deserves to be quashed and I do so. The 3rd respondent is directed

to issue notice, hear the petitioner and then pass orders afresh.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC

JUDGE

jan/-