IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23880 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROSILY ANTONY,VETTOM VELI HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA PO, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 23880 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was allotted a plot in an industrial development area. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the same is proposed to be resumed on the ground that the petitioner has not used the plot for the purpose for which it was allotted within the period prescribed in the agreement executed for such allotment and also on the ground of non-payment of arrears. The petitioner would submit that it is not because of any fault on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner could not put the plot for use for which it was allotted, but because of the delay on the part of the respondents in arranging to cut and remove the trees standing in the plot. As regards non-payment of arrears, the petitioner submits that she is prepared to pay off the same. The petitioner relies on Ext. P13 judgment of this Court, which, according to the petitioner, is in respect of another allottee identically situated, wherein this Court has given relief to the allottee. The petitioner has another contention that before passing the order impugned, namely, Ext. P9 order resumption, the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of being heard. 2. The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayers of the petitioner. But the learned Government Pleader could not dispute the averment of the petitioner that before passing Ext. P9 order, the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. That being so, Ext. P9 is liable to be quashed on that ground alone. Accordingly, Ext. P9 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner would be free to produce and W.P.C. No. 23880/10 -: 2 :- rely upon Ext. P13 judgment as also other materials in support of her contentions and the 1st respondent shall consider the applicability of that judgment and the other materials produced to the facts of the petitioner's case appropriately. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/