IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 32 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26475/2010 Dated 08/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- A.ABDUL RASHEED, BADHARIYA MANZIL, NEDUMBANA, KOLLAM-691001. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM-691001. 2. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. T.RAGHUNATH, THOPPIL VEEDU, THEKKUM BHAGAM WARD, KOLLAM-691001. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION-691001. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE CONTROL ROOM, KOLLAM-691001. R1 TO R3 & R5, R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 32 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal in pursuance of the challenge raised against Ext.P19 order dated 18.3.2010; whereby the industrial plot stated as taken over from the appellant/petitioner pursuant to Ext.P14 order of the same date has been allotted to the 4th respondent for running an industry, though an interim order of status quo is already there, in view of the proceedings pending before the appellate authority, preferred at the instance of the appellant. 2. The sequence of events is as follows: The appellant was allotted an industrial plot bearing No.35 in the area in the year 1978. But the appellant admittedly could not start the unit for nearly three decades, for which several reasons are offered by the appellant including the financial constraints, natural calamities and so on. Finally it was decided by the appellant in the year 2008 to change the project and necessary project report was submitted before the very same Industries Department which was stated as allowed. It is stated that on getting the sanction, the appellant also approached the W.A.No.32 of 2011 - 2 - authorities of the Electricity Board to get necessary industrial connection and that further steps are going on. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant on many an occasion had approached this Court and the other authorities concerned anticipating the steps which were being taken by the Industries Department to take over possession from the appellant, alleging non- compliance or rather violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment. It is contended that, in view of the sanction stated as given to the appellant to the new project, permitting to proceed with the matter in the year 2008, no coercive steps could be taken. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the possession was taken from the appellant as per Ext.P14 order dated 18.3.2010 without any regard to the statutory prescriptions; pursuant to which he was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11459 of 2010 wherein Ext.P15 judgment was passed on 6.4.2010 relegating him to pursue the statutory remedy before the Government, simultaneously granting interim stay. It is also brought on record that pursuant to the above verdict the appellant approached the Government by filing necessary appeal and an order of stay was obtained on 16.4.2010 which was subsequently got extended from 19.4.2010 as borne by Ext.P16. It is further stated that the re-allotment of the plot W.A.No.32 of 2011 - 3 - which was stated as taken over from the appellant was also stayed by this Court followed by necessary orders issued by the Government in this regard. However, the appellant came to know later that the property stated as taken over from the appellant on 18.3.2010 had already been allotted to the 4th respondent as per another proceeding allegedly passed on the same day, i.e. 18.3.2010 as borne by Ext.P19 which made him to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.26475 of 2010. 4. During the course of such proceedings the sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition was taken note of by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Government the Director of Industries had also passed a consequential order directing the 4th respondent not to proceed with any further steps for the developmental activities in the plot in question and that this order was still in existence. It was in the said circumstances that the appellant was directed to pursue the matter before the Government with regard to the grievance projected in the writ petition, making it clear that the 'status quo' as on date would continue. 5. During th course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the unit is now lying locked up and no further proceedings are pursued by the 4th respondent in view of the interim order passed by the Government, Departmental authorities and also by W.A.No.32 of 2011 - 4 - this Court. The apprehension of the appellant is with regard to Annexure A2 proceedings of the Government Note File wherein an observation has been made by the concerned authority to sustain the taking over and allotment to the 4th respondent which according to the appellant is likely to weigh with the Government while finalizing the appeal. The learned counsel submits that the impugned proceeding, i.e. Ext.P19, was passed only on a much later occasion though the date has been maliciously shown as 18.3.2010; i.e. the date of taking over by passing Ext.P14 order. 6. The matter admittedly is still pending consideration before the Government As such, we do not find it necessary to consider the relative merits and to interfere with the verdict already passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant has been directed to pursue the matter before the Government, more so, when the interim orders passed by the Government, Departmental authorities and also by this Court in the impugned judgment very much safeguard the rights and interests of the parties concerned. 7. In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the writ appeal is dismissed, however, making it clear that the Government shall finalize the appeal proceedings as already directed by this Court with reference to the actual materials/records and in W.A.No.32 of 2011 - 5 - accordance with law, untrammelled by the findings in Annexure A2 'Note file'. The 'status quo' will continue till such time. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns