K.P.Johny vs The General Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 9201 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9201 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

K.P.Johny vs The General Manager on 19 March, 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.7312 OF 2013(L)


PETITIONERS:

      1        K.P.JOHNY
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O.K.I.PAILY, RESIDING AT KANNANPUZHA, MEKAD,
               ANGAMALI SOUTH P.O,

      2        JOSE P.D
               S/O.P.O.DEVASSY, PYNADATH HOUSE, KIDANGORE P.O,
               ANGAMALY.

               BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE GENERAL MANAGER
               AGED 48 YEARS
               DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, GANDHINAGAR,
               KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 682 020.

      2        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               REVENUE (L) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

      3        MS. BHAGAVATHI BEVERAGES PVT. LTD
               INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ANGAMALI SOUTH 683
               573, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
               MR.V.S.DEVARAJAN.

               R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

               SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.7312 of 2013

                                       2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 1 and 2 to expedite the resumption

proceedings initiated against the 3rd respondent and effect

allotment in favour of the petitioners within a time frame; and a

writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to pass

appropriate interim orders preventing all construction activities

on the property allotted to the petitioners, pending the

resumption proceedings. The issue raised in this writ petition is in

respect of 3.30 Acres of land allotted to the 3 rd respondent in

Angamali Industrial Development Area by the State Industries

Department for conducting an industry.

2. On 24.05.2013, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the matter was ordered to be posted after three

weeks, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Thereafter, on 19.06.2013, the writ petition was ordered to be

posted 'when moved again'.

3. On 05.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for WP(C)No.7312 of 2013

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time

to get instructions as to whether the relief sought for in this writ

petition has become infructuous. The learned Government

Pleader sought adjournment. On 15.02.2021, the learned

Government Pleader was directed to file a statement of the 1 st

respondent, based on the instructions already received.

4. A statement of the 1st respondent dated 15.03.2021 is

placed on record. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement read thus;

"7. It is submitted that the 1 st respondent has reviewed the revival project on 14.05.2014 and in the hearing, the company submitted that even though the company has taken certain steps for servicing the existing machinery, most of them are not in working condition and has become outdated also. They also said that the replacing of the machineries cost nearly 10 crores and expressed their concern that in the present situation of the company the project will not be viable. Hence, they requested permission to change their activity to Logistic Park, Cold Storage etc. AS per G.O.(Rt)No.224/2014/ID dated 19.02.2014 the Government have permitted to utilize 5% land in Development Area/Development Plot for service activities like Godown, Logistics, Cold Storage etc. Hence the request of the company and connected documents forwarded by the 1st respondent to the Director of WP(C)No.7312 of 2013

Industries & Commerce for further directions. As per the letter No.ID3/10679/15(1) dated 18.12.2014 the Director of Industries and Commerce rejected the proposal for Logistic Park. Against the rejection, M/s.Bhagavathy Beverages (P) Ltd. filed W.P.(C)No.10969/2015. The Hon'ble Court passed the judgment on 17.08.2017 and quashed the order dated 18.12.2014. The Hon'ble Court directed the Director of Industries & Commerce to re- consider the request of the petitioner in terms of law and in terms of the provisions of the Mirco Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The Hon'ble Court further held that the allotment of land or the decision on change of activity in favour or against M/s.Bhagavathy Beverages (P) Ltd is not something that concerns them (the petitioners in this writ petition) and they would have a case only after the land is resumed for the 3 rd respondent and made ready for re-allotment. Accordingly, M/s.Bhagavathy Beverages (P) Ltd was heard by the Director of Industries and Commerce and granted permission to the revised Project Logistic Park on lease basis as per Order NO.ID3/7797/15 dated 16.11.2017. Now the unit has submitted an application and related documents for change in the category of land from lease to hire purchase and the same is pending.

8. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court in W.P.

(C)No.10969/2015 clearly held that the petitioners have a case only after the land is resumed from the 3 rd respondent WP(C)No.7312 of 2013

and made ready for re-allotment. Hence the prayer in this writ petition to expedite the resumption proceedings and effect the allotment within a time frame is not legally sustainable." (underline supplied)

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that he could not contact the petitioners.

7. As pointed out in paragraph 7 of the statement filed by

the 1st respondent, in W.P.(C)No.10969 of 2015, this Court held

that the petitioners herein have a case only after the land is

resumed from the 3rd respondent and available for re-allotment.

The application submitted by the 3rd respondent for change in the

category of the land is now pending consideration before the 1 st

respondent.

In such circumstances, at this point of time, the petitioners