IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35532 of 2010(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.MOIDHEENKUTTY, KOOTHRADAN HOUSE, KALAMBADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA, SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KSIDC), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KESTON ROAD, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 003. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KSIDC), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KSIDC), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 4. INKEL, VALLATHAL JN., SEA PORT AIR PORT, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN - 682 028. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE,SC, KSIDC SMT.MARIAM MATHAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35532 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1, 1st respondent granted licence to the petitioner in respect of its acquired land, with right to enjoy all usufructs from the coconut trees standing therein. The period specified in Ext.P1 is two years from 6/12/2008. Default was committed by the petitioner in paying the licence fee, which finally resulted in Ext.P8 order dated 23/7/2010 terminating the lease. 2. Ext.P8 was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No.25940/10. It is stated that, at the stage of admission, an interim order was granted on condition to pay Rs.2 lakhs. That interim order was not complied with and finally when the matter came up for further orders on 15/11/2010, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without reserving any liberty in favour of the petitioner. It is thereafter that this writ petition is again filed challenging Ext.P8 and seeking a direction for considering Ext.P9 representation. 3. Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent objects to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground WPC No. 35532/10 :2 : that, in view of the judgment dated 15th of November, 2010 dismissing WP(C) No.25940/10 without reserving any liberty, petitioner is estopped from filing fresh writ petition on account of the rules of res judicata. 4. That apart, on merits, it is stated that the period of Ext.P1 licence has already expired on 5/12/2010. It is also submitted that during the currency of the licence, the licence was terminated for the reason that the petitioner committed default in paying the licence fee and that even the instalment facility granted to the petitioner by Ext.P6 was not complied with. Further, it is also pointed out that including 153 acres mentioned in Ext.P1, a total area of 240 acres of land has already been leased out to the 4th respondent, another Government of Kerala undertaking for developing it as an industrial estate and that the land has already been handed over to the 4th respondent. 5. Admittedly, the relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is contractual, and therefore, even if the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent has committed breach of contract is accepted, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court. That apart, on account of the dismissal of WP(C) WPC No. 35532/10 :3 : No.25940/2010, the rules of res judicata also prevents the petitioner from filing another writ petition, and for that reason also, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Added to this, is the fact that the period of the licence has already expired, and therefore, the petitioner cannot now seek any order from this Court to require the respondents to continue the licence arrangement beyond 5/12/2010. This is all the more so, since the land has already been handed over to the 4th respondent for developing it into an industrial estate. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp