IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 12123 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- IA 1130/2009 IN OS.141/2009 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V. JOHNEY, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 46, KUNDUKARAN HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN- 682 003, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER - LEGAL - M.V.H. MENON. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, O/O. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, CIRCLE, VANAPRIYA FOREST COMPLEX, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR - 680 004. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR , SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.V.J.ANAND. R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12123/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 141/2009 OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P2:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) IN WPC. 6511/2007. P3:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ONWPC./ 6511/2007 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED THEREIN. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 6511/2007 DT. 11.10.2007. P5:- COPY OF THE GO(MS)12/2009/F&WLD DTD. 7.2.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION WITH THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE ANNEXURES THEREIN. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. NO.1130/2009 IN OS. 1411/2009 DTD. 24.3.2009 OF THE PRL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.12123 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an applicant in I.A.No.1130/09 in O.S.No.141/2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court Irinjalakuda. The writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P7 order passed in the said I.A. and also to declare that the petitioner is liable to be heard in the suit as additional 4th defendant. 2. O.S.No.141/90 was filed by M/s.Harissons Malayalam Ltd., the lst respondent herein, against the State of Kerala, the Principal Secretary to Government, Forest and Wildlife Department and the Conservator of Forests. Ext.P1 is the copy of O.S.No.141/90 filed for a declaration that G.O.(MS). No.12/09/F&WLD dated 27/2/09 will not affect the leasehold rights of the plaintiff and the leases are valid and also to declare that the said order is illegal, null and void and against the terms of the lease deeds and unenforceable against the plaintiff and for -2- WP(C).No.12123/09 consequential relief for injunction. 3. The writ petitioner filed Ext.P6 application (IA.No.1130/09) for impleading him as the additional 4th defendant in the suit. According to him, he preferred W.P.(C).No.6511/2007 before this Court against M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. with a prayer to resume the leasehold properties, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.141/09. Ext.P4 is the copy of the judgment in the said writ petition. This Court in Ext.P4 judgment held that since the Government have already initiated certain proceedings against M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. for the alleged violation of the conditions of the lease agreement between the parties, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition. The petitioner wanted to implead him as additional 4th defendant in the suit. The dispute in the suit is as to whether there is violation of the lease agreement between the State and the lessee. The Government alleged that there is violation of the lease agreement and proceeded to resume the land. The dispute centres around the question as to whether -3- WP(C).No.12123/09 resumption of land by the State is in accordance with law. The court below rightly observed that to consider the said question what is relevant is only the terms of agreement between the parties. The court below also observed that the petitioner herein is not a necessary party to resolve the dispute between the parties to the suit and therefore the application for impleading is dismissed. The reasons stated in the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in all respects. I find that no valid grounds are made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition fails and accordingly dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -4- WP(C).No.12123/09