P.K.S.Industrial Corporation vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5210 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

  FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

                    WP(C).No.2475 OF 2021(H)


PETITIONER:

               P.K.S.INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
               AROOR P.O., AROOR CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               MANAGING PARTNER M.S.ANAS.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.B.PRAMOD
               SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        THE GENERAL MANAGER
               DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688
               001.

               SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.2475 of 2021

                                         2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, is in possession

of a land having an extent of 32 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.11/12

and 11/12-3-10 of Aroor Village at District Industries Centre,

Alappuzha. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to

quash Ext.P3 notice dated 30.12.2020 issued by the 2 nd

respondent; and a writ of mandamus commanding the

respondents not to take any action/steps against the petitioner

firm for resumption of land covered by Ext.P2 agreement.

2. On 01.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions and file a statement on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on

instructions, would submit that Ext.P3 notice issued by the 2 nd

respondent is one in relation to the resumption proceedings WP(C)No.2475 of 2021

initiated against the petitioner under Rule 24 of the Government

Land (Allotment and Assignment for Industrial Purposes) Rules,

2020. The petitioner has already submitted Ext.P4 reply dated

07.01.2021. The 2nd respondent will consider Ex.P4 reply

submitted by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision on

Ext.P3 notice, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that consideration of Ext.P4 reply may be with notice to the

petitioner and after affording the authorised representative of the

petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 reply submitted

by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision on Ext.P3

notice, with notice to the petitioner and after affording an

authorised representative of the petitioner an opportunity of

being heard, within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

7. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC WP(C)No.2475 of 2021

309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to

direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of

law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara

Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court

reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a

direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to

act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are

meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or

directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

8. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 2nd respondent shall take an appropriate decision

in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the

relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

yd WP(C)No.2475 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.1.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 7.6.2017.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.1.2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE