IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35434 of 2003(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ YAMUNA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., 22-A-DEVELOPMENT PLOT P.O., PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.R.RAGULAL. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.35434/03 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B9/29 DT 18.5.1989 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.5.89 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIOENR IN FAVOUR OF THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF HIRE PURCHASE ORDER GOVERNING THE TRANSACTION AND THE RULES FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 15TH JULY, 1999 SENT by THE PETITIONR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.8.1999 SENT by the PETITIONR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.7.2000 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.8.2000 SENT BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.5.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.6.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B9/29/89 DATED 2.7.99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B9/29/89 DT.9.4.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.IDI/9474/01 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER DT 24.6.2002. WPC NO.35434/2003 -2- EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 28.10.2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 31.10.2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 23.4.2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No. 35434 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P12 and P16 and to direct the respondents to assign the plot of land alloted to the petitioner in terms of Exts.P1,P3 and P4. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Maida, Sooji and Atta etc. They made an application to the first respondent for allotment of a plot of land on hire purchase basis. Accordingly by Ext.P1 they were allotted two acres of land in survey No.25/1 in Valappaya Village in the development area of Athani on hire purchase basis. The amount was to be paid in instalments and as certified in Ext.P2, full value of the land has been paid by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the rule governing the allotment of WP(c)No.35434/03 2 land. Subsequently, the petitioner set up the industry and thereafter applied for assignment of the land allotted. That appears to have been declined by the Government and the decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P12. Petitioner sought a review of the decision. That was also declined by Ext.P16. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is field. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent and paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reads as under. “It is submitted that even though the party had satisfied the conditions and utilized the land allotted, the Government is competent to take a decision to grant or reject the application without assigning any reason. As per the rules and agreement it has been stipulated that in all matters of the agreement the decision of the Government shall be final and binding on the allottee.” 4. From this averment, it is evident that the respondents have no case that the petitioner has violated any of the terms WP(c)No.35434/03 3 of the allotment or that the petitioner has not paid the full value or that the petitioner has not utilized the land for the purpose for which it was allotted. On the other hand the aforesaid portion of the counter affidavit shows the adamant and unreasonable stand on the part of the respondent that they will not assign land and that the decision of the Government is final and binding. Since allotment is covered by Ext.P4 rules, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to assignment of land has to be decided in view of the provisions of Ext.P4 and if conditions are satisfied, land should be assigned. Clause 24 of Ext.P4 provides that, on completion of the payment, by paying full costs of the land allotted and after the industry is established, arrangements shall be made by the Director of Industries and Commerce to get the land assigned to the allottee thorough proper authorities. Here the fact that the petitioner has paid the full amount is certified by Ext.P2 and the fact that the Industry has been established is admitted in the counter affidavit filed. If WP(c)No.35434/03 4 that be so, the petitioner's case is exclusively covered by clause 24 of Ext.P4 and if that be so, the land is liable to be assigned to the petitioner. 5. The decision to the contrary as indicated in Exts.P12 and P16, cannot be sustained and are quashed. Respondents are directed to assign the land alloted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1. However, it is clarified that if there is any subsequent violation of the terms of the allotment or such other valid reason attributable to the petitioner disentitling the petitioner for assignment, it will be open to them take appropriate action in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c)No.35434/03 5