IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15236 of 2007(L)
1. V.M.MANOJ, VIRUTHIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.SUNIL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :07/04/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 15236 OF 2007
.........................................................................
Dated this the 7th April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P9 order passed by the second respondent cancelling
Ext. P1 order of allotment, whereby an Industrial Workshed was
allotted to the petitioner and also ordering repossession of such
workshed because of the default committed by the petitioner, is
under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. An Industrial Work Shed was allotted to the petitioner,
who belongs to the SC community, by the second respondent,
as borne by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 25.08.2003 subject to the
condition that the petitioner effected prompt payment of the
rent, which was provisionally fixed at Rs.530/- per month
considering plinth area of 1060 Sq.ft. It is seen that the
petitioner and some other similarly situated persons in the area
had preferred various representations before the authorities
including the second respondent, seeking for effecting periodical
W.P.(C) No. 15236 OF 2007
2
maintenance to the Industrial Work Shed and for such other
appropriate reliefs, also claiming assignment of ownership right
over the property/Industrial Work Shed, which in turn was
declined as borne by Ext.P6 followed by Ext.P7 notice, asking the
petitioner to clear the rental arrears in respect of the Shed in
question. The above notice was replied by the petitioner as per
Ext. P8 representation, seeking for the benefit of instalments for
enabling him to clear the liability in respect of the rental arrears.
Since the petitioner did not turn up, despite issuance of notice
dated 21.03.2007 sent to him by registered post and since there
was contravention of relevant terms and conditions, the
allotment was cancelled and the Industrial Work Shed was
ordered to be repossessed, as borne by Ext. P9 proceedings
issued by the second respondent, which has been subjected to
challenge in this Writ Petition.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit
justifying the stand taken by him mainly in view of the failure on
the part of the petitioner in clearing the rental arrears of
Rs.20,670/- as on 25.02.2007. It is also stated in the counter
W.P.(C) No. 15236 OF 2007
3
affidavit that the very purpose of the Scheme was defeated in
so far as the petitioner, despite securing allotment, did not start
any industrial activities in the said land and that the inspection
revealed that he had sublet the industrial land to some others.
Ext.P9 proceedings have been finalised by the second respondent
only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by
issuing a registered notice. Despite receipt of notice calling for
hearing, the petitioner did not turn up, as observed in Ext.P9.
The petitioner has not chosen to file any reply affidavit to rebut
the averments of the second respondent.
In the above facts and circumstances, no interference is
called for. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk