IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20177 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- E.VIJAYAM WARRIER PROPRIETRIX OF M/S. MALABAR BINDING HOUSE SHED NO.C-20 CHANDNI, MAVOOR ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM PO, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.ANIL D. NAIR MR.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-5 ADV.R.T.PRATEEP -SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20177 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been allotted a shed in an Industrial Estate by the respondent for conducting an industry. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been conducting the business of binding books and manufacturing files and envelops and other printing material for commercial use for more than 35 years in that shed. The petitioner, by Ext.P4 letter, requested for permission to make major repairs of the shed. On receipt of the same, without passing orders on the same, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P7 notice, directing the petitioner to show cause why the shed should not be resumed from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not used the shed for the purpose for which it was allotted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the further statement in Ext.P7 that if the explanation received is found unsatisfactory, further action will be initiated to take vacant possession of the shed without further notice. According W.P.9c)No.20177/10 2 to the petitioner, the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P8 explanation and the respondent cannot, without passing a final order considering the contentions of the petitioner, resume the shed automatically without further notice. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent also. 3. I am satisfied that after having directed the petitioner to show cause why the shed should not be resumed, the respondent cannot straight away resume possession of the land without passing a final order after considering the petitioner's explanation. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: The respondent shall pass a final order after considering Ext.P8 explanation and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and only after one week from the date of service of the order on the petitioner, further proceedings in the matter shall be taken. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.9c)No.20177/10 3 W.P.9c)No.20177/10 4