Kerala High Court
Prancer Developers Llp vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
W.P.(C) No.41947 of 2022 1
2025:KER:324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 41947 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 PRANCER DEVELOPERS LLP,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 16/501 O,
MONTANA STATE, PERINGOTTUPURAM, PERINGOLAM P.O.,
KOZHIODE - 673571, REPRESENTED BY
DESIGNATED PARTNER K.P. VEERANKUTTY
2 PRIME EARTH DEVELOPERS LLP,
(FORMERLY GOLDEN TECH JEWEL WORLD LLP)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 16/501 O, MONTANA ESTATE,
PERINGOTTUPURAM, PREINGOLAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE -673 571, REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY A.K. NISHAD
3 MALABAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 16/501 O, MONTANA ESTATE,
PERINGOTTUPURAM, PERINGOLAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR ABDUL YASHIR ADI RAJA
BY ADVS. E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN,KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM,RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6 95 001
W.P.(C) No.41947 of 2022 2
2025:KER:324
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
5 THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER,
(CONVENER, STATE LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE)
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
6 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA STATE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-680003
8 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY()
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.41947 of 2022 3
2025:KER:324
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.41947 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order passed
by the 5th respondent and also Exts.P13 and P14 Government orders issued
by the 1st respondent. Petitioners have also sought for a consequential
direction to the 1st respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the
petitioners for setting up Private Integrated Information Technology & Hi-
tech Park, Mannuthy by granting exemption under Section 10 of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (in short, "Act 2008").
2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are limited liability partnership firms registered
under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and the 3rd petitioner is a
private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and
is a partner of petitioners 1 and 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the absolute
owners in possession of a total extent of 813.99 Ares (20.10 acres) of land
in various survey numbers in Ollur and Marathakara Villages in Thrissur
Taluk, Thrissur District, having obtained the same under sale deeds
registered as document Nos.1850/2011, 2006/2011, 2538/2011,
3240/2011, 475/2012, 1151/2012, 4514/2012, 3459/2014, 803/2015 and
2025:KER:324
1665/2016 of SRO, Kuttanelloor. Out of the total extent of 813.99 Ares, an
extent of 441.15 Ares of land in various survey numbers of Ollur and
Marathakara Villages is owned by the 1 st petitioner and an extent of 372.84
Ares of land in various survey numbers of Ollur Village is owned by the 2 nd
petitioner. The entire 813.99 Ares of land referred to above are lying
contiguous to each other. The 1st respondent by Ext.P1 issued the
guidelines and procedures for setting up Private Integrated Information
Technology & Hi-tech Parks. The same is based on the new Information
Technology (IT) Policy of the Government. The said policy envisaged
creation of five lakhs IT jobs within the State. In order to achieve this target,
a minimum of 50 million square feet of built up space was to be developed
by the year 2020. The Government owned IT Parks even if developed after
the expansion plans would not be sufficient to meet the requirement of 50
million square feet of built up space and hence in terms of the policy
development of IT and Hi-tech Parks by private sector in lands owned by
them. The policy goes on to state that encouraging stand-alone buildings in
private sector would result in huge strains in urban infrastructure as was the
case in Tier-I IT Cities. In addition, there was tremendous opportunity for Hi-
tech research and manufacturing. In order to attract private investment into
these sectors, the Government would have to create a level playing field for
them to develop and operate Integrated IT & Hi-tech Parks. The concept
under Ext.P1 to set up Private IT & Hi-tech Township was to create walk-to-
2025:KER:324
wok, self-contained townships to be developed by private entrepreneurs in
the land owned by them. Such developments would reduce the pressure on
the existing urban infrastructure, since the new developments would be
done entirely with private funds at locations away from centre of city, so that
at least 20% of the work force would be living in the township itself. Ext.P1
also spells out the amenities such as malls, budget apartments, schools,
guest house, star and budget hotels, multiplexes, entertainment centres,
hospitals, sports and recreation centres, daycare centres, working women's
hostel/restaurants, boat clubs, etc. to be created in the IT township. The
qualification criteria stipulated under Ext.P1 is that the private IT parks shall
have a minimum area of 20 acres and the same shall be owned or leased in
the name of the applicant and further that the proposed land shall not be a
'wetland' as defined under the Act 2008. Admittedly there is no wetland in
the land held by the petitioners 1 and 2 and earmarked for setting up the
Private IT Park. Petitioners submitted a proposal in accordance with Ext.P1
Government Order for setting up a Private IT Park in the aforesaid land.
The Certification Committee which met on 28.05.2014 considered the
proposal submitted by the petitioners and decided to recommend issuance
of a certificate to the petitioners subject to the conditions therein as evident
from Ext.P2 minutes. On the basis of Ext.P2 recommendation of the
Certification Committee headed by the Principal Secretary, IT Department
the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 certificate dated 26.08.2014 certifying the
2025:KER:324
IT Park to be set up by the petitioners to be a Private Integrated IT & Hi-
tech Park. After certification of the project of the petitioners the 1 st
respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 26.02.2015 wherein the Government
declared the establishment of Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park shall be
a "public purpose" as provided in Clause (xiv) of Section 2 of the Act 2008.
Later on by Ext.P5 order the Industries Department of the Government
declared the land held by petitioners 1 and 2 in which the IT Park is
proposed to be set up as "industrial area of the State" for the purpose of
speedy implementation of the Project and constituted a Single Window
Clearance Board with the 2nd respondent as the Chairman and the Single
Window Clearance Board as per Ext.P6 granted permission to the
petitioners for commencement of construction of three buildings subject to
compliance of conditions stipulated therein. One of the conditions stipulated
in Ext.P6 was that the petitioners shall obtain necessary clearance from
Government of Kerala for conversion of paddy lands available within their
property and only after such conversion the construction shall be
commenced. Petitioners submitted that all other conditions stipulated in
Ext.P6 were complied with by them. Petitioners further submitted that the
total capital outlay of the project is above Rs.1200 crores and if the project
is implemented it would give direct employment to more than 10000 people
and an equal number of indirect employment and the project would greatly
catalyse the socio-economic development of Thrissur. Petitioners submit
2025:KER:324
that as the project of setting up Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park is
already declared as a "public purpose" for the purpose of the Act 2008, the
1st respondent was bound to exempt the land held by the petitioners from
the provisions of the said Act. Petitioners have submitted Exts.P7 and P8
requests before the 8th respondent seeking permission under Clause 6 of
the Kerala Land Utilization Order. It is the contention of the petitioners that
no order has been passed on Exts.P7 and P8 requests till date. In view of
Ext.P4 order declaring that setting up of Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech
Parks is "public purpose" petitioners submitted Ext.P9 application before the
5th respondent seeking exemption under Section 10 of the Act 2008. As
provided under Section 10(2) of the Act 2008 the 5 th respondent is
empowered to conduct an enquiry regarding the nature of the land and
submit a report to the Government and it is for the 1 st respondent
Government to grant such exemption. In the present case the 5 th
respondent as per Ext.P10 declined the request of the petitioners for
conversion of the said land for the purpose of setting up a Private
Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park on the ground that it cannot be considered as a
"public purpose" and accordingly rejected the request of the petitioner
seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act 2008. It is submitted that
the 5th respondent has absolutely no jurisdiction to pass Ext.P10 order in as
much as Ext.P9 application could be considered only by the Government
and not by the State Level Monitoring Committee whose role is only to
2025:KER:324
submit a report as to whether the proposed conversion would adversely
affect the cultivation of paddy in the adjoining land and free flow of water
thereto. In the meanwhile the petitioners obtained environmental clearance
from the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change as evident from
Ext.P11. The Single Window Clearance Board constituted as per Ext.P5
convened a few meeting for considering the project submitted by the
petitioners. While so a complaint was filed before the Lokayukta stating that
the certification, etc. granted to the petitioners were on extraneous
consideration. In the said complaint the 2nd respondent has filed Ext.P12
reply to the Lokayukta stating that the certification, etc. granted to the
petitioners were strictly in accordance with law. While so by Ext.P13 order
the Government rescinded Ext.P3 certification on the ground that the
projects near to urban areas that are close to airports alone can grow and
attract IT entrepreneurs. Petitioners submit that the said reasoning is
counter to the declared policy of the Government which states that
encouraging such infrastructure development would cause huge strains in
urban infrastructure. Petitioners submit that going by Ext.P1 guidelines the
Certification Committee is entitled to cancel the certification only for the
reason of non-fulfilment of the obligations by the promoter and that too after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the promoter. Petitioners contend
that in Ext.P13 the 1st respondent has not stated that the petitioners failed to
fulfil any of the obligations as stipulated in Ext.P1. Later on by Ext.P14
2025:KER:324
order the constitution of Single Window Clearance Board was revoked.
There also the contention of the petitioners is that the 1 st respondent has
not issued any notice to the petitioner or afforded an opportunity of being
heard before deciding to terminate the work of Single Window Clearance
Board. Petitioners submit that the statement in Ext.P14 order that the
working of the Single Window Clearance Board is terminated is without any
basis in as much as even after issuance of Ext.P14 order the Single
Window Clearance Board chaired by the Chief Secretary has reconsidered
the proposal of the petitioners for setting up the Private Integrated IT & Hi-
tech Park, Mannuthy, Thrissur as evident from Exts.P15 to P17 minutes of
the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board. It is aggrieved by the
said stand taken by the respondents in Exts.P10, P13 and P14 that the
present writ petition has been filed.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4
wherein it is contended that Ext.P10 Government order was issued for the
reason that the purpose mentioned in the application will not come under
the purview of "public purpose" as per Act 2008 and hence the request for
converting paddy land for the purpose of setting up Private Integrated IT &
Hi-tech Park cannot be considered as a "public purpose". It is further
contended that there is inordinate delay in challenging Ext.P10 order. It is
also submitted that more than 50% of the total extent of the land where the
park is proposed to be established at Mannuthy is classified as paddy land.
2025:KER:324
A complaint was raised before the Kerala Lokayukta alleging that the paddy
field in Thrissur District and a stream passing through the said land are
being filled and a compound wall is being constructed. In the said
circumstances the preliminary approval by the Information Technology
Department and the Industries Department and the implication of the
project on the environment as well as economy were re-examined by the
Government in the backdrop of the complaint filed before the Kerala
Lokayukta and on a detailed examination it was found that the project does
not have greater public interest and will adversely affect the environment.
The Government had also considered the fact that projects near urban
areas that are close to airport alone can grow and attract IT entrepreneurs
and the project propounded by the petitioners is in Ollur and Marathakkara
Villages in Thrissur District which is not closely connected with the airport.
The earlier experience of the Government in respect of the Info Parks at
Kasaragod and Kannur is that the projects were hampered and stopped
due to the abovestated shortcoming. The counter affidavit also relies on the
provisions of the Act 2008 which only permits reclamation of paddy land
upto 10 cents in Panchayat area and 5 cents in Municipality/Corporation
area for construction of residential house and massive conversion of paddy
field for private projects like that of the petitioners is against the very
essence of the Act. It is further submitted that in Ext.P6 certificate issued by
the Single Window Clearance Board nine conditions were incorporated
2025:KER:324
including obtaining clearance from Government for conversion of paddy
land, the petitioner has not produced any document to prove that the other
conditions enumerated in Ext.P6 were complied with. Ext.P1 guidelines
does not mandate any hearing before the cancellation of the certificate and
therefore there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that they were
not afforded an opportunity of being heard before rescinding Ext.P3
certificate as per Ext.P13 Government order. It is also contended that the
power of the Government to issue Ext.P3 certificate and Ext.P5
Government order includes the power to cancel or rescind the same. In
view of the above, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader
that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
4. A detailed reply has been filed by the petitioners in answer to the
averments in the counter affidavit wherein the petitioners contended that
the project was reviewed by the Government based on a complaint
preferred before the Kerala Lokayukta and that no proper study was
conducted before issuing the impugned orders as to whether there is any
violation on the part of the petitioners. Petitioners submit that after the
clearances are obtained more than Rs.15 crores was invested by them in
the said project and also obtained environmental clearance from the
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. Petitioners would
submit that the Certification Committee was well aware of the nature of the
2025:KER:324
land before issuing the certification and the Government has declared the
project land as industrial area of the State and if the project would adversely
affect the environment, no certification would have been issued by the
Government. It is further contended that the stand of the Government that
only projects near urban areas that are close to airport can grow and attract
IT entrepreneurs is absolutely without any basis in as much Techno Park,
Kundara in Kollam District and Info Park, Cherthala in Alappuzha District
are performing well. It is also contended that the driving time from Cochin
International Airport to the proposed site is almost equal to the driving time
from the same airport to Info Park, Kochi. It is further submitted that the
contention taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioners were not able to
comply with the conditions enumerated in Ext.P6 is without any basis and
contend that all the conditions except the exemption from conversion of
paddy land have been complied by the petitioners and these aspects were
communicated to the Chairman of the Single Window Clearance Board as
per Ext.P19 communication. As regard the delay in challenging Ext.P10
communication the contention of the petitioners is that the authorities were
continuing to consider the project for implementation as evident from
Exts.P20 to P22 and based on the same the Kerala State Single Window
Clearance Board chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State was actively
considering the project.
5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
2025:KER:324
6. As stated above, Ext.P1 guidelines and procedures for setting up
a Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park was issued by the 1 st respondent
based on the new IT Policy of the Government specifically taking into
consideration that the Government owned IT Park even if developed after
the expansion plan would not be sufficient to meet the requirement of 50
million square meters of built up space. Going by Ext.P1, application for
certification of a Park shall be made to the convener of the Certification
Committee, a committee constituted by high ranking officers of the
Government which is chaired by the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the
Department of Information Technology. The Certification Committee
considered the proposal of the petitioners and after an overall evaluation
found the proposal to be good as it give thousands of job opportunities
direct as well as indirect without any financial commitment either to the
Government or to the local bodies and recommended issuance of certificate
subject to certain conditions. Later by Ext.P3 the Certification Committee
issued certification for Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park to the petitioners
detailing the survey numbers of the property. Thereafter by Ext.P4 the
Government of Kerala specified the Private Integrated IT and Hi-tech Park
Undertakings as 'public purpose' as per Clause (xiv) of Section 2 of the Act
2008. Later by Ext.P5 the Government declared the Private Integrated IT &
Hi-tech Park at Mannuthy of the petitioners as an industrial area of the
State and constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for issuance of
2025:KER:324
various licenses, clearances and certificates required under the State
enactment for setting up of a small scale industrial undertaking or industrial
undertaking. It is taking into consideration the fact that by Ext.P4
Government order all the Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park undertakings
was treated as 'public purpose' as per Clause (xiv) of Section 2 of the Act
2008 that the petitioners have submitted Ext.P9 application under Section
10 of the Act 2008 seeking exemption from the provisions of the said Act.
Section 10 deals with the power of the Government to grant exemption
which empowers the Government to grant exemption from the provisions of
the Act 2008 if such conversion or reclamation is essential for any public
purpose and shall notify in the Government gazette and Clause (2) of
Section 10 mandates that such exemption shall be granted by the
Government only after considering the report of the State Level Monitoring
Committee. The Agricultural Production Commissioner before whom Ext.P9
is submitted is the Convenor of the State Level Monitoring Committee. The
said application has been rejected by Ext.P10 not on the basis of any
recommendation of the State Level Monitoring Committee as mandated in
Section 10(2) of the Act 2008, but taking a stand that the application does
not come under the purview of 'public purpose' as per the provisions of the
Act 2008 and the request for converting paddy land for the purpose of
setting up Private Integrated IT and Hi-tech Park cannot be considered as
'public purpose'. Ext.P10 as I stated above was without following the
2025:KER:324
procedure as contemplated in Section 10 of the Act 2008 and the said order
is in total variance from the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P4
wherein all Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park undertakings shall be
treated as 'public purpose' for the purpose of the Act 2008. Another aspect
to be considered is ExtP3 certification for Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech
Park issued by the Certification Committee. The Certification Committee
has issued Ext.P3 after an overall evaluation of the proposal and on finding
that it will bring job opportunities and that there is no financial commitment
to the Government. A perusal of Ext.P3 order would also reveal that the
land details wherein the project is to be established is also given therein.
Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the Certification Committee has
certified the project as a Private Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park without
verifying the nature of the land where the project is proposed. A perusal of
Ext.P10 does not reveal whether the same has been issued after following
the procedures as contemplated in Section 10 of the Act 2008. The stand
now taken in Ext.P10 that the purpose of setting up of a Private Integrated
IT & Hi-tech Park cannot be considered as a 'public purpose' is contrary to
Ext.P4 order. Further, there is no case for the Government that Ext.P4 has
been recalled or modified by subsequent orders. The only stand taken by
the Government in the counter affidavit is that Ext.P4 order is not issued
exclusively for the petitioners, but it is a general order in respect of Private
Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park undertakings. Even if it is a general order when
2025:KER:324
Ext.P3 certification has been issued certifying the project as a Private
Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park, naturally the case of the petitioner will also
come within the purview of Ext.P4.
7. Yet another contention taken by the petitioners is that Ext.P13
order issued by the Government whereby the certification for Private
Integrated IT & Hi-tech Park issued to the petitioners was rescinded is
without notice to the petitioners and without affording an opportunity of
being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on Ext.P1 submits
that the Certification Committee constituted as per Ext.P1 should review the
progress of all certified parks every year and the said annual review shall
continue until all the obligations by the promoter under the guidelines are
fulfilled and it further mandates that the Certification Committee may cancel
the certificate for reasons of non-fulfilment of any obligation by the promoter
after giving a reasonable opportunity. Going by Ext.P1 the Certification
Committee after conducting a review and for reasons of non-fulfilment of
obligation could cancel the certification granted as per Ext.P3 after giving a
reasonable opportunity to the promoter. A perusal of Ext.P3 also would
reveal that the certification was granted by the Certification Committee
constituted as per Ext.P1. Therefore, it is contended that only the
Certification Committee could cancel Ext.P3 certificate and the Government
has absolutely no power to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P13. It is
further contended that Ext.P13 has been issued only based on an allegation
2025:KER:324
that the certification issued has been used for wetland conversion. In
Ext.P13 there is absolutely no finding to the effect that any of the conditions
have been violated and that the petitioners have indulged in any act of
conversion in subject property. The reasoning that the projects in urban
areas that are close to airports alone can grow and attract IT personnels
and the present site is not one near the airport is also not a reason for
rescinding the certification in as much as such mandate is not there in
Ext.P1. Further it is to be seen that it is after evaluating all the aspects and
after finding that the proposal is good as it gives thousands of job
opportunities that the Committee decided to recommend issuance of
certification and it is only thereafter that Ext.P3 has been issued. After
evaluating all these aspects and Ext.P1 Government Order I find
considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that Ext.P3 certification which is issued by the Certification Committee,
could be cancelled only by the Committee as provided in Sub-clause (4) of
Clause 3.7 of Ext.P1 after affording an opportunity of being heard. A
perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that not even the views of the Certification
Committee was obtained before issuance of Ext.P13 and Ext.P13 has been
issued only for the reason that there is an allegation that the petitioners
have used the certification for conversion of wetland.
8. After issuance of Ext.P13, by Ext.P14 order the Government has
terminated the working of Single Window Clearance Board constituted as
2025:KER:324
per Ext.P5. The reason stated in Ext.P14 is that the Single Window
Clearance Board has entrusted the promoters to obtain all clearances and
on an observation that only projects in urban areas which has proximity to
airports will attract IT professionals. Learned counsel for the petitioners
relying on the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and
Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (in short, "Act 1999")
contended that Section 5 provides for constitution of Industrial Area Board
and Section 13(1) of the said Act empowers the State Board to revoke the
licences. As per Section 13(1) if the State Board may suo motu at any time
examine the records of a District Board or an Industrial Area Board in
respect of any proceedings under the Act and if the State Board is satisfied
that the clearance or certificate or licence under the Act has been obtained
by misrepresentation as to the essential facts, the State Board may be
order directing the authority concerned to revoke the licence or certificate or
clearance issued by them. On the basis of the same the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that only the State Board has power to
rescind the order declaring the project area as an industrial area of the
State and constitute Single Window Clearance Board. But, I am unable to
accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in as
much as the industrial area as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act 1999
means an area in the State declared to be an industrial area by the
Government by notification in the gazette. So it is for the Government to
2025:KER:324
issue such notification and to declare such area as industrial area and
therefore it is well within the power of the Government to rescind the said
notification. But the reason stated for issuance of Ext.P14 is that the Single
Window Clearance Board has entrusted the responsibility of obtaining all
clearances for the project to M/s.Malabar Developers Pvt. Ltd. itself and
therefore the Board has become irrelevant and further that the project is
located in Ollur and Marathakara Villages which are not closely connected
with the airport. Petitioners would further contend that Ext.P14 was issued
without notice to them and without an opportunity of being heard. As held
earlier, the presence of an airport to the proposed IT Park is not a condition
precedent in Ext.P1. Further, before issuing Ext.P14 order the petitioners
were not issued with any notice or afforded an opportunity of being heard.
The only stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the statute or Ext.P1
guidelines does not provide for a hearing before issuance of Exts.P13 and
P14. I am unable to accept the said stand of the Government since the said
orders have been issued in violation the principles of natural justice. If the
statute or Ext.P1 guidelines is silent with regard to providing of an
opportunity of personal hearing to the affected person in a decision which
involves adverse civil consequences, the authorities are legally bound to
adhere to the principles of natural justice. In view of the same Exts.P13 and
P14 issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners
and without taking into consideration any of the relevant aspects of the
2025:KER:324
matter, are liable to be interfered with. (see the judgment in C.B.Gautam v.
Union of India and others ((1993) 1 SCC 78), Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India and another ((1978) 1 SCC 248), Gorkha Security Services v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ((2014) 9 SCC 105), Poonam v. State of U.P. and
others ((2016) 2 SCC 779) and Alagaapuram R.Mohanraj and others v.
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and others ((2016) 6 SCC 82).
9. Yet another aspect to be noted is that even after issuance of
Exts.P10, P13 and P14 orders the Kerala State Single Window Clearance
Board has continued to consider the proposal of the petitioners as evident
from Exts.P15, P16 and P19 to P22. None of these aspects were taking into
consideration while issuing the impugned orders.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am
of the opinion that Ext.P10 order issued by the 5th respondent and Exts.P13
and P14 Government orders issued by the 1st respondent are liable to be
interfered with and they are accordingly quashed. As I have already found
that Ext.P10 order has been issued without following the procedures
contemplated as per Section 10 of the Act 2008 and is in clear violation of
Ext.P4 general order issued by the Government, a fresh decision shall be
taken on Ext.P9 application in accordance with law after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Likewise, the issue regarding
rescinding of certificate in respect of the petitioner's Private Integrated IT &
Hi-tech Park shall be reconsidered by the Certification Committee
2025:KER:324
constituted as per Clause 3.4 and as empowered as per Clause 3.7(4) of
Ext.P1 Government order, G.O.(Ms.) No.10/2013/ITD dated 03.04.2013,
with notice to the petitioners. The 1st respondent Government will reconsider
as to whether Ext.P5 Government Order, G.O.(P) No.1/2016/ID dated
05.01.2016 published as SRO No.21 of 2016 dated 08.01.2016 should be
rescinded or not, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioners and after considering whether such circumstances exist for doing
so.
With the abovesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
2025:KER:324
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41947/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O (MS)
NO.10/2013/ITD, DATED 03.04.2013 TOGETHER
WITH THE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURE FOR
SETTING UP PRIVATE INTEGRATED IT AND HI-
TECH PARKS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DATED 28.05.2014 OF THE CERTIFICATION
COMMITTEE HEADED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, IT DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
26.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
CERTIFYING THAT THE IT PARK TO BE SET UP
BY THE PETITIONERS TO BE A PRIVATE
INTEGRATED IT & HI-TECH PARK
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P). NO.84/ 2015/ RD,
DATED 26.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P). NO.1/2016/ IND,
DATED 05.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19.02.2016 ISSUED BY INFO PARKS, KERALA
TO THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
20.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT, RDO,
THRISSUR. (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
20.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT, RDO,
THRISSUR (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
2025:KER:324
29.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. AGRI-
NCA2/240/2016 DATED 20.12.2018 OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.F21-
175/2017IA-III, DATED 10.08.2017 ISSUED
BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST &
CLIMATE CHANGE
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
06.09.2017, SUBMITTED BY THE JOINT
SECRETARY, IT DEPARTMENT TO THE LOKAYUKTA
(WITHOUT EXHIBITS)
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT). NO.180/ 2022/ITD,
DATED 01.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P). NO.14/ 2021/IND,
DATED 10.06.2021, ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES
OF THE 30TH MEETING OF THE KERALA STATE
SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD HELD ON
03.08.2021
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES
OF THE 31ST MEETING OF THE KERALA STATE
SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD HELD ON
21.01.2022
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES
OF THE 32ND MEETING OF THE KERALA STATE
SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD HELD ON
09.05.2022
Exhibit P 18 True copy of the minutes of the meetings
of LLMC received by the petitioner on
30.10.2017 under the Right to Information
Act, 2005
Exhibit P19 True copy of the letter dated 25.10.2017,
2025:KER:324
issued by the petitioner to the Chairman
of the Single Window Committee
Exhibit P20 True copy of the extract of the minutes
of the 26th meeting held on 18th March
Exhibit P21 True copy of the said notice dated Nil
issued by the Kerala State Industrial
Development Corporation to the petitioner
Exhibit P22 True copy of the said letter dated
18.06.2024, issued by the Kerala State
Industrial Development Corporation to the
petitioner
