IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6065 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P. HARIKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, CHITHRASALA MOVIES, KHARVEL, CPGP LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 9010. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 6065 OF 2009 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Case is taken up for final hearing by consent. 2. Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P5. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner is presently the proprietor of M/s.Chithrasala Movies. It was started as a partnership firm. An amount of Rs.1,33,900/- was sanctioned as subsidy vide Ext.P1. It is stated that this was pursuant to Ext.P2. It is the case of the petitioner that the firm is engaged in video software generation and entitled to investment subsidy. Ext.P3 is a notice issued from the office of the 2nd respondent relying on audit of accounts by the Accountant General(Audit), Kerala, who stated to have objected to the sanctioning of investment subsidy to M/s.Chithrasala Movies. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has given Ext.P4 upon receipt of Ext.P3, on 15.9.2006. In the meantime, the petitioner is faced with attachment under section 34. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned WPC.6065/09 : 2 : Government Pleader. One of the contentions taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P3 is issued. 4. Having heard the parties, I feel that Ext.P3 can be treated as a notice and Ext.P4 can be treated as a reply given to the same. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as follows. The 2nd respondent will take a decision in the matter in accordance with law, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, for which the petitioner shall be present before the 2nd respondent at 11 am on 10.3.2009. Till such a decision is taken, Ext.P5 will not be enforced. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE