High Court Kerala High Court

Rosily Antony vs The General Manager on 9 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rosily Antony vs The General Manager on 9 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34671 of 2010(H)


1. ROSILY ANTONY, VETTOM VELI HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRTARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :09/12/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                 W.P.(C) No. 34671 of 2010 H
             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
           Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was allotted a plot having an extent of 99

cents in Ayyankunnu Industrial Development area in Thrissur

district. Ext.P1 is the agreement that was executed. In this

writ petition, she challenges Ext.P15 order.

2. Earlier, alleging violation of the terms of the

allotment, Ext.P9 order resuming the industrial plot was

passed. That order was challenged before this Court and in

Ext.P14 judgment rendered in WP(C) No.23880/2010, on the

ground that the order was passed without affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order was set

aside and the matter was ordered to be reconsidered.

Accordingly, petitioner was heard and Ext.P15 was passed,

the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

” But on personal hearing the

promoter could not put forward any concrete

proposals to start the project to utilise the

W.P.(C) No.34671/10
: 2 :

land with valid supporting details. The

reason, the promoter had stated for delay in

implementing the project is due to delay in

cutting and removing of trees in the land. But

the cutting and removing of the trees was

completed in March 2009 itself. The

supporting details for financial arrangement,

they had produced an invalid copy of the loan

recommendation letter from KVIB to

M/s.Canara Bank, Athani. The promoter had

promised to produce valid letter for raw

material availability within 29-09-2010, but

failed to produce any valid details. The party

is a defaulter of 2 instalments of land value

dues.”

3. When the matter was taken up, the main

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

was that the finding in Ext.P15 that the petitioner did not put

forward any concrete proposal to start a project to utilise the

land is incorrect. According to the learned counsel, Exts.P10

and P11 enclosing building plan and other details were

submitted and it was on account of the inaction on the part of

W.P.(C) No.34671/10
: 3 :

the respondents that the petitioner could not proceed further

with the matter.

4. When this submission was made, the learned

Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the

matter. Accordingly, on instructions, it is submitted that

among the documents produced by the petitioner, the

respondents had received only Ext.P10, a one line letter and

that too without any enclosures including any building plan or

other details. It is stated thereafter the petitioner did not turn

up despite repeated notices that were issued and in the

circumstances, the impugned proceedings were issued.

5. Although it is the case of the petitioner that she

made all efforts to establish the industrial unit, there is nothing

on record to prove such a contention. That apart Ext.P10,

which is admitted to have been received by the respondents,

does not contain any concrete proposal for utilisation of the

land. That apart, she is already found to be a defaulter.

Therefore, this evidently is a case of violation of the terms of

W.P.(C) No.34671/10
: 4 :

allotment and the agreement entered into between the

parties.

6. The plot in question allotted to the petitioner is in

an industrial development area which is established by the

Government for promoting small scale industrial units. If an

allottee does not make use of the plot which is a scarce

commodity, the authorities are entitled to resume the land and

re-allot the same to deserving applicants waiting for allotment.

Such being the case, I do not find any merit in the case set up

by the petitioner.

Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge