IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23028 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.P.SULEKHA, ASPIN, MULAMKADAKOM, THIRUMULLAVAROM P.O. KOLLAM -12. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.S.IND(Q) 327, KOLLAM DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691002. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM - 691002. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 23028 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by a former allottee of a shed in the Mini Industrial Estate in Chavara. He is challenging Exts.P9 and P13 orders, which are the original and the the order on his representation, whereby the allotment of shed to the petitioner, has been cancelled and the shed has been resumed. 2. Firstly I am of opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. The very same shed was allotted to a third party. But he is not being given possession of the shed on the ground that the petitioner's materials are stored in that shed. The new allottee had filed W.P.(C). No.17782/10 complaining of delay in handing over possession of the shed after allotment to him. In that case, intimation was given to the petitioner herein, directing her to remove the materials belonging to her from the shed. In that case, the petitioner therein viz., the new allottee, had taken a contention that there is a deliberate attempt to deprive him of the benefit of allotment to help the petitioner in this writ petition. In that writ petition, I passed an interim order directing the respondents therein to issue an intimation to the petitioner in this writ petition to remove her materials from the shed and to give vacant w.p.c.23028/10 2 possession of the shed to the petitioner in that writ petition, even if the petitioner in this writ petition does not remove the materials as directed. The petitioner in this writ petition filed an impleading petition in that writ petition, which is pending. But the petitioner has filed this writ petition without disclosing all these facts despite being in the know of all the facts. That amounts to suppression of material facts. Therefore, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. 3. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been using the shed for years and the same is kept locked. Petitioner was given Ext.P5 notice dated 6.4.2009 directing her to show cause why the shed should not be resumed for non-user for the purpose for which it was alloted and non-payment of purchase price. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P12 dated 22.12.2009, the shed was directed to be resumed. Petitioner was given a further communication, Ext.P9 dated 9.9.2009 for recovery of the arrears of hire charges also. By Ext.P13 dated 22.5.2010 also the petitioner was informed about the rejection of his representation. Despite all these happenings, the petitioner has not woken up. In the meanwhile, another person has been alloted the shed also. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge that allotment. Sheds in industrial estates are to be alloted to persons who are prepared to start industries therein and the same cannot be allowed to be kept idle w.p.c.23028/10 3 after allotment. As such, the petitioner by not using the shed for the purpose for which it was alloted, has rendered herself ineligible for continued occupation of the same. The petitioner's 'dog in the manger' attitude cannot be countenanced anymore. Therefore, on merits also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for all the above reasons. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge