IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11898 of 2009(F)
1. VAIGAI THREAD PROCSSORS (P)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
3. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKUDA.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.11898 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd June,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, a company registered under the
Companies Act, was the beneficiary of the demise of a
property of an extent of 81.92 acres of land originally
effected in favour of M/s.Jumna Thread Mills Ltd. Later
pursuant to an amalgamation and transfer of assets, the
petitioner became the leseee of the said property. The
Government as per Exhibit-P1 order granted sanction to
lease out 85 = acres of land to the petitioner fixing the
lease rent at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum under the
Kerala Land Assignment Rules. It seems that there were
certain softwood trees standing in the property in
dangerous condition and a request was made by the local
authority also for cutting and removing those trees.
2. Later, after an inspection was conducted, it was
found that loss has been caused to the Government by
cutting and removal of trees in the demised lease hold
W.P ( C) No.11898 of 2009
2
property and therefore by Exhibit-P9 the petitioner was
asked to remit an amount of Rs.4,33,440/-. Exhibits P9 and
P10 notices were issued to the petitioner in this regard.
Exhibit-P11 reply was given by the petitioner. Objections
were overruled under Exhibit-P12 which was challenged by
the petitioner in WPC No.38833/2003. By Exhibit-P13
judgment this Court directed the District Collector, the 2nd
respondent to take a decision in the matter after hearing
the petitioner. A decision by the 2nd respondent is yet to be
taken. In the meanwhile. Government proceeded to pass an
order Exhibit-P15 affirming the demand of Rs.4,33,000/-,
which has been challenged in the writ petition.
3. Several contentions have been taken up for
challenging Exhibit-P15. I am satisfied that the matter
requires reconsideration at the hands of the Government.
Since the petitioner was not heard, there is non-compliance
of the direction earlier issued by this Court in Exhibit-P13.
4. I heard learned Government Pleader also.
In the result, Exhibit-P15 is set aside and the
Government is directed to pass a fresh order after
W.P ( C) No.11898 of 2009
3
considering the petitioner’s objection as per P11 and after
hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that such order to
be passed by the Government shall then be treated as one
in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in
Exhibit-P13 judgment. Fresh orders shall be passed within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.11898 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.11898 of 2009
5