IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 23067 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. A. DORAISWAMY, S/O. AYYAMUTHU PILLAI, VELMURUGHAN AGRICULTURAL FARM, PAMPAMPALAM.P.O, PUDUSSERY EAST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 2. D. NAVEEN, S/O. A. DURAISWAMY, VELMURUGHAN AGRICULTURAL FARM, PAMPAMPALAM.P.O, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 3. K.K. NAGARAJ, S/O.V.K. KRISHNASWAMY PILLAI, VELMURUGHAN AGRICULTURAL FARM PAMPAMPALLAM.P.O, PUDUSSERY EAST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 4. P. NATARAJAN, S/O. PAZHANIPANDARAM, CANAL PIRIVU, PAMPAMPALLAN, PUDUSSERY EAST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 5. RAVICHANDRAN, S/O. NATARAJAN, CANAL PIRIVU, PAMPAMPALLAN, PUDUSSERY EAST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 6. V. SATHEESH, S/O. VASU, VATTAPPARA, VALAYAR.P.O, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC 23067/08 2. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA HOUSE, 31/9312, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PALAKKAD. R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.RAGHUNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.23067 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd October, 2008 JUDGMENT Mr.G.S.Raghunath, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the KINFRA has only given a proposal and administrative sanction is yet to be given by the Government for the proposal. Mr.Raghunath further submits that even the proposal of the KINFRA had nothing to do with the properties of petitioners 1 to 5. Under the above circumstances, I hold that the Writ Petition is premature and dispose of the same without considering the grounds raised. It is open to the petitioners to file a fresh Writ Petition on all available grounds after initial notification under Section 4(1) is promulgated. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE