IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23153 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.VAIGAI THREAD PROCESSORS PVT.LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.55/2, BILVARDAHALLI, JIGNI HOBLI, GOTTIGERE P.O. BANGALORE-560 083 AND UNIT AT KORATTI-680308, REP. BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR V.J.PAUL. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (L) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23153 of 2007 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DAATED 10.10.1950, REGISTERED AS NO.3056/1950 OF SRO, CHALAKKUDY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 27.4.1956, REGISTERED AS NO.2101/1956 IF SRO, CHALAKKUDY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.122/98/RD DATED 5.3.1998. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.1.2006 OF BIFR IN CASE NO.143/2000. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL & FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION IN CASE NO.143/2000 DATED 17.4.2006 WITH A COPY OF THE SANCTION SCHEME. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.5.2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.7.2006 SENT BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.10.2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KEARLA. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.4.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.5.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.5.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OT THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.7.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR OF MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 23.7.2007 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOARD NOW DISPLACED IN THE FACTORY PERMISES. WP(C).No. 23153 of 2007 EXT.P16: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMET SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 25.7.2007. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.(C) NO.38833/2003 DATED 10.12.2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28.2.2005. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.23/08/IT DT. 16.6.2008. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.23153 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a sick Company. The Company is functioning in the land belonging to the Government allotted to them for the specific purpose of running their factory. The Government sought to resume a portion of the land on the ground that the petitioner is not using the land for the purpose for which the same was allotted to the petitioner, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The respondents point out that in the writ petition itself in paragraph 6, the petitioner themselves have stated that the petitioner has approached the Government for permission to sub lease a portion of the land. The contention of the respondents is that when the petitioner themselves sought permission of the Government to sub lease a portion of the land, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner does not need the land. The Government would further submit that the land is urgently needed for setting up an Information Technology Park. W.P.(c)No.23153/08 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that whatever be the reason, principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner be given an opportunity of being heard before resuming the property. 4. Of course, the learned Government Pleader would contend that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner. Without going into the controversy, I direct the Government to take a final decision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. For this purpose, the representative of the petitioner shall be present before the 1st respondent on 5.9.2008 on which date or any other adjourned date, the 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner and pass final orders in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.23153/08 3