IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14722 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MAGNUM GLASS WORKS, PLOT NO.28, CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,SHEELA WILLIAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14722 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a small-scale industrial unit. They were allotted Government land at Chemical Industrial Estate, Aroor on hire purchase basis. They have paid off the entire purchase price and the land was assigned to them. Patta was also issued to them in respect of the property. Petitioner is a partnership firm. The original partners retired and there was a reconstitution of the firm, which according to the petitioner, was duly communicated to the authorities concerned. Although the firm is reconstituted, there is no change in the industry or the functioning thereof in the land allotted to the firm. But the petitioner now submits that on the ground that for reconstitution of the firm the petitioner had not obtained prior permission from the authorities, steps are afoot for cancellation of the assignment and the patta. Petitioner has filed Ext.P5 W.P.(C)No. 14722 of 2010 -2- petition before the 1st respondent in respect thereof. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader would oppose the prayers. He would contend that the firm could not have been validly reconstituted without obtaining prior permission from the authorities and in so far as the petitioner have not done so, they are liable for the consequences thereof which includes cancellation of the assignment and the patta. 3. I am of opinion that just because the petitioner committed a mistake in not obtaining prior permission, petitioner should not be visited with such drastic steps like cancellation of the assignment and the patta, if otherwise they are entitled to permission for reconstitution and continuance of the industry by the reconstituted firm as per the assignment and the patta. Therefore the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon in W.P.(C)No. 14722 of 2010 -3- the light of the observations made above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, there shall not be any coercive proceedings against the petitioner as apprehended by the petitioner. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/