IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 15236 of 2007(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.M.MANOJ, VIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, POOVANTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.V.K.SUNIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. TEKCHAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15236/2007-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. B1-3048/2002 DTD. 25/08/2003 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SC/ST ENTREPRENEURS BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DTD. 30/06/2001. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SC/ST ENTREPRENEURS BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES DTD. 27/07/2001. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 22/10/2003. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DTD. 24/11/2005. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B1/3048/02 DTD. 02/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. B1/3048/02 DTD. 22/02/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 12/03/2007. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1/3048/02 DTD. 21/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 15236 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P9 order passed by the second respondent cancelling Ext. P1 order of allotment, whereby an Industrial Workshed was allotted to the petitioner and also ordering repossession of such workshed because of the default committed by the petitioner, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. An Industrial Work Shed was allotted to the petitioner, who belongs to the SC community, by the second respondent, as borne by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 25.08.2003 subject to the condition that the petitioner effected prompt payment of the rent, which was provisionally fixed at Rs.530/- per month considering plinth area of 1060 Sq.ft. It is seen that the petitioner and some other similarly situated persons in the area had preferred various representations before the authorities including the second respondent, seeking for effecting periodical W.P.(C) No. 15236 OF 2007 2 maintenance to the Industrial Work Shed and for such other appropriate reliefs, also claiming assignment of ownership right over the property/Industrial Work Shed, which in turn was declined as borne by Ext.P6 followed by Ext.P7 notice, asking the petitioner to clear the rental arrears in respect of the Shed in question. The above notice was replied by the petitioner as per Ext. P8 representation, seeking for the benefit of instalments for enabling him to clear the liability in respect of the rental arrears. Since the petitioner did not turn up, despite issuance of notice dated 21.03.2007 sent to him by registered post and since there was contravention of relevant terms and conditions, the allotment was cancelled and the Industrial Work Shed was ordered to be repossessed, as borne by Ext. P9 proceedings issued by the second respondent, which has been subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the stand taken by him mainly in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner in clearing the rental arrears of Rs.20,670/- as on 25.02.2007. It is also stated in the counter W.P.(C) No. 15236 OF 2007 3 affidavit that the very purpose of the Scheme was defeated in so far as the petitioner, despite securing allotment, did not start any industrial activities in the said land and that the inspection revealed that he had sublet the industrial land to some others. Ext.P9 proceedings have been finalised by the second respondent only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by issuing a registered notice. Despite receipt of notice calling for hearing, the petitioner did not turn up, as observed in Ext.P9. The petitioner has not chosen to file any reply affidavit to rebut the averments of the second respondent. In the above facts and circumstances, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk