IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 1642 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MULAVARICKAL GROUP, MULAVARICKAL ESTATE BUILDING, ASHOKAPURAM P.O., ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.LINSON M.DOMINIC. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SMT.R.BEENA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. 4. ADDL. DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1642 OF 2008 - U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of paint and other ancillary products. According to them, they in view of dearth of space they had submitted Ext. P1 application for allotment of additional 4 acres of industrial land. However, only 50 cents were allotted to them by Ext. P2 order which on actual measurement was found to be only 30 cents. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that while so, they received Ext. P4, an order issued by the 3rd respondent cancelling the allotment of additional land on the allegation that when an inspection was conducted it was seen that the industrial unit already set up by the petitioner was seen closed. Petitioner submits that the industrial unit has not been closed and that it is still functioning. 3. Irrespective of the factual controversies involved in the writ petition, I feel, the matter requires re-examination. This is for W.P.(C) No.1642 OF 2008 - 2 - the reason that when the allotment of the land that is already allotted to the petitioner is sought to be cancelled, the petitioner is entitled to be put on notice and should be given an opportunity to explain its case. A reading of Ext. P4 and the averments in this writ petition, shows that such an opportunity was not extended to the petitioner. If that be so, Ext. P4 is to be held as one vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext. P4 deserves to be quashed and I do so. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue notice, hear the petitioner and then pass orders afresh. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-