IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 34533 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.CEE JEE LUBRICANTS, VI/592, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, EDAYAR, BINANIPURAM.P.O., ALUVA-683 502, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR C.J.ANTO. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM- 30. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-30. R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2- W.P (C) No.34533/2010 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 – TRUE COPY OF OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT, G.O. (RT) No.562/2001/RD DATED 26-02-2001. EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF THE PATA ISSUED ON 18-07-2001. EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17-04-2008 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-10-2008. EXT.P5 – TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (LESS ITS ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 14-01-2009. EXT.P6 – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 14-07-2009. EXT.P7 – TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05-03-2010 IN W.P (C) No.2131 OF 2010. EXT.P8 – TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25-10-2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT. EXT.P9 – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-10-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AMG P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 34533 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Government, whereby, the request made by the petitioner have assigned nearly 48.11 cents of land situated in Sy. Nos.62/1`, 62/4-3, 62/4-4, and 62/3 of Kadungalloor Village and to permit the petitioner to have it mortgaged before the Financiers has been turned down. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was assigned 50 cents of land, granting patta, out of a total of 98.8 cents of land and he has made use of the entire land of 98.8 cents including the remaining 48 cents for the purpose of the industrial unit, which has already been set up. It was in the said circumstance, that a spot inspection was conducted by the authorities concerned leading to Ext.P6 recommendation given by the General Manager of the Industries Department as early as on 14.7.2009. Since the matter was not properly dealt with, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.7131 of 2010 which culminated in Ext.P7 judgment, whereby the matter was directed to be W.P (C) No.34533 of 2010 2 considered by the Government. Since no action was forthcoming, petitioner again approached this Court by filing Cont.Case No.1272 of 2010. During the pendency of the above case, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the request made by the petitioner was considered and rejected as per Ext.P9 and it was in the said circumstance, that the contempt petition was closed, observing that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner, petitioner was free to challenge the said proceedings. In turn, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order dated 30.10.2010, whereby, the Industries Department has rejected the prayer, on the ground that there was no project proposal for utilising the additional area of land. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the materials on record that the stand initially taken by the Government as revealed from Ext.P8 was that the Industries Department, though had recommended the assignment of additional area to the unit, Ext.P9 is contrary to the stand taken in Ext.P8 and hence is liable to be interfered. W.P (C) No.34533 of 2010 3 4. The learned Government Pleader with reference to the materials on record including the counter affidavit, submits that Ext.P6 is only a recommendation and that the Government is not bound to accept the recommendation given by the General Manager of the Industries Department. But the question is whether such recommendation given by the 5th respondent as per Ext.P6 was considered by the Government with proper application of mind, before the request was turned down as per Ext.P9. 5. Going by the contents of Ext.P6, it is seen that the said recommendation is dated 14.7.2009 and no reference to the said recommendation has been made in Ext.P9 order dated 30.10.2010. What is stated in the counter affidavit is something supplemental to the contents of Ext.P9. In other words, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the respondents that the Government, while passing Ext.P9 had considered Ext.P6 as well and that the decision taken was on that basis as well. 6. In the above circumstances, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Government. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside and the Government is directed to reconsider W.P (C) No.34533 of 2010 4 the matter with reference to all the materials on record including Ext.P6, in accordance with law. Appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ma True copy/ P.A to Judge