IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27055 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- V.RANJEEV, PROPRIETOR, SOUTH INDIAN REFRACTORIES, FUNCTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE FOR CERAMICS, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA .S RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (S) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT COMPANY LTD. (SIDCO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2, & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADR SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP R4 BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 27055 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was given on lease certain properties in an industrial estate. The lease period is long over. Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.11822 of 2008. By Ext.P5 judgment it was held that the petitioner has no right to continue to hold on to the property after the expiry of the lease period. Accordingly, that writ petition was dismissed. But in that judgment, after dismissing that writ petition, the following paragraph was added. “If the petitioner wants to purchase the property, it is upto him to approach the Government and it is for the Government to take appropriate decision in the matter taking precaution not to cause any impediment to the public purpose for which it is sought to be now transferred to the 5th respondent. I do not express any opinion on the same.” On the strength of the said paragraph, the petitioner approached the Government seeking sale of the property to the petitioner. That was refused. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.32270 of 2009, which was also dismissed by Ext.P9. Petitioner filed a writ appeal namely Writ Appeal No.2819 of 2009 in which without expressing any opinion on the merits, a representation filed by the petitioner, was W.P.(C).No. 27055 of 2010 2 directed to be disposed of. By Ext.P11 order, that representation was also rejected. Petitioner continued to make representations to the Government, which were also ultimately dismissed by Ext.P16 dated 22.7.2010. Petitioner has now filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “a) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to call for the s records leading to Exts.P14 & P16 and quash the same; b) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's request to assign 50 Cents of land held by the petitioner in accordance with the Rules for assignment as has been done in the case of other allottees; b) To award to the petitioner the costs of these proceedings; c) To grant such other or further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the particular facts and circumstances of the case.” Petitioners rights in respect of the property have already been decided by Ext.P5 judgment holding that the petitioner is not entitled to continue to hold on to the property after expiry of the lease period. That being so, the petitioner has no right to claim sale of the property to the petitioner. It is the absolute discretion vested with the Government to decide as to whether their property should be sold to the petitioner or not. They have exercised that discretion for valid reasons as per the impugned orders. The petitioner has not pointed out any provision of law W.P.(C).No. 27055 of 2010 3 which entitles him, as of right, for a direction to the Government to sell the property to him. Therefore, I do not find any merit whatsoever in the challenging against the impugned orders, especially, since petitioner has suffered Ext.P5 judgment which has become final. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns