IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 140 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13017/2006 Dated 14/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC: -------------- K.THOMAS VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, ENFIT RUBBER FACTORY, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR POST, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 & R4 ADV.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R2, R3 & R5. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.140/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was allotted two sheds in an industrial estate in Changanacherry. He did not remit the rent in time. So, proceedings were initiated to evict him. Finally, the matter was settled between the parties, with the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (for short “SIDCO”) offering to sell the property to the appellant. Initially, the SIDCO fixed the price as Rs.14,04,738/-, as per Ext.P3. The appellant complained. Taking into account the various factors, the SIDCO re-fixed the price as Rs.5,06,527/-, as per Ext.P4. Dissatisfied with the conditions contained in Ext.P4, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that the claim of the appellant is irrational. It was found that the price was reasonable, having regard to the extent WA No.140/2010 - 2 - of land allotted. In that view, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. If the appellant is not satisfied with the conditions in Ext.P4, he need not take the land. We find that it is a commercial transaction between the seller and the buyer. Because of the policy of the Government to promote industries, he is being allotted the land at a very reasonable rate. Therefore, we find no reason to entertain the grievance raised by the appellant against the terms of allotment. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.