IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1177 of 2009()
1. SCHIFFLIES INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES,
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
4. EMMY AGUSTUS,
5. BETTY THOMAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1177 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was
filed with the following prayers:
“a) call for the records of the case leading upto
Exhibit P10 and also the necessary permission
granted by the respondents 2 and 3 to the respondents
4 and 5 for change of activity and for the induction of
two new partners and to quash the same by the
issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction.
b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing the
respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith resume the land
allotted to the respondents 4 and 5 in the development
plot, Kalamassery since they have not complied with
the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment
and also in the Rules for allotment.
c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing the
W.A.No.1177 of 2009
– 2 –
respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s request
for allotment of additional land and to pass
appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as
possible, within a time limit to be fixed by this
Hon’ble Court.”
2. The learned Single Judge after elaborately considering
the matter and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both
sides and also the learned Government Pleader, disposed of the writ
petition with the following directions:
“(a) The 2nd respondent Director of Industries
and Commerce shall consider the objections raised by
the petitioner as regards the change of user sanctioned
in favour of respondents 4 and 5 as per Ext.P10
[Ext.R4(c)].
(b) In doing so, the 2nd respondent shall
consider whether such change of user as such might
result in any prejudice or detriment being caused to
the garment manufacturing unit run by the petitioner.
(c) If the Director comes to the conclusion that
such prejudice or detriment would be caused by the
change of user permitted in favour of respondents 4
and 5 then there would be no restraint on the Director
W.A.No.1177 of 2009
– 3 –
revoking the permission already granted.
(d) Further, it shall also be open to the Director
to consider any other steps that may have to be taken
by respondents 4 and 5 to see that no hardship is
caused to the petitioners. In the alternative, the
Director shall consider whether any other suitable
extent of land situated in the vicinity could be allotted
in favour of the petitioner, satisfying its claim for
expansion of the unit as made in Exts.P3 and P5.
(e) Orders in this regard shall be passed by the
Director within two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. Respondents 4 and 5 may
be permitted to continue with the civil construction
which they have already undertaken. But, they shall
not start any activity except on permission being
granted by the Director.”
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that since the second respondent is again relegated to consider
the matter afresh, no meaningful purpose will be served since the order
of the second respondent was under challenge. On a suggestion that if
the first respondent can consider the matter afresh, learned counsel
appearing for both sides and the learned senior Government Pleader
W.A.No.1177 of 2009
– 4 –
agree that the directions given by the learned Single Judge can be
considered by the first respondent instead of the second respondent.
4. Yet another apprehension of the learned senior counsel
for the appellant is that some of the findings in the judgment would
stand in the way of the first respondent in considering the matter in an
open mind. We do not find any basis on that apprehension also. When
the first respondent considers the matter, the same will be done
untrammelled by the findings, if any, in the judgment, but taking note
of the directions of the learned Single Judge.
5. Therefore, we dispose of the writ appeal directing the
first respondent to consider the matter as directed by the learned Single
Judge within a period of one month from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment by either party with notice to both sides.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
Kurian Joseph,
Judge
vns