IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29004 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MICHAEL, S/O.MICHAEL AGED 54, OUSEPH PARAMBIL, BHARANGANAM VILLAGE,ULANADU KARAYIL PALA, KOTTAYAM-686651. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. 3. M/S.ALWAYE TECHNO ENGINEERING(P) LTD. MUPPATHADAM, ALUVA REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR E.K.JALEEL, AGED 46. 4. M.USMAN, S/O.HUSSAN HAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, MUTTUMAL HOUSE, SHORNUR, DIRECTOR ,M/S.ALWAYE TECHNO ENGINEERING(P) LTD., MUPPATHADAM., ALUVA. 5. MUHAMMED ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.ABDUL KARIM, PULLANIYIL HOUSE, PASTTAMBI, ASGED 52, PALAKKAD, DIRECTOR, M/S.ALWAYE TECHNO ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,MALAPPURAM, ALUVA. 6. K.M.ASHRAF, S/O.POKKER HAJI 46 YEARS AL RAYAN APARTMENT, ERANJI, PALAM PO., CALICUT, DIRECTOR, RUBBER O MALABAR PRODUCTS (P) LTD. EDAYAR, MUPPATHADAM. BY GP SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29004/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner supplied certain goods to the third respondent. According to the petitioner, purchaser failed to repay the value of the goods supplied to him and he therefore, instituted O.S.385/2006 before the Additional Sub Court, North Parur. The same is pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, assets of the defendant have been attached pursuant to an order passed in the I.A.2881/2006 as evidenced by Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, assets of the defendant third respondent-Company were sold to one M/s Rubber O Malabar Products (P) Ltd and thereafter, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam had allotted the plot of the land, which was originally allotted to the third respondent, in favour of the aforementioned company. Petitioner submits that the allotment is in contravention of the order of attachment. They have filed Ext.P2 representation before the General Manager of District Industries W.P.(C).29004/2008 2 pointing out that the amounts are due to them from the third respondent-Company and this must be permitted to be realized from the subsequent allottee. Petitioner has produced Ext.P3 order of allotment along with the Rules in which one of the conditions of allotment is that if the third respondent has any dues in respect of its unit functioning in the above land, the same shall be cleared by the new Company. According to the petitioner, if there are any dues arising in respect of the aspect, decision of the Government shall be final. Writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the General Manager to consider Ext.P2 representation within a time frame. 2. In my view, writ petition is misconceived. If the defendant in O.S.385/23006 has transferred any of its assets in contravention of the order of attachment, then it is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Court, which passed the order of attachment. 3. General Manager of the District Industries Center would not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute W.P.(C).29004/2008 3 involving the money claim raised by the petitioner against the third respondent merely on the strength of the fact that the third respondent is an allottee of the plot of industrial land in the District Industries Centre. General Manager is not a judicial authority in this regard. The order of the allotment which provides for a liability on the subsequent allottee to clear the dues incurred by the original allottee essentially would comprehend only the statutory dues or the dues which have been incurred by the allottee and relatable to the order of allotment. No powers of adjudication in this behalf can be vouchsafed in favour of the General Manager, District Industries Centre. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Civil Court in relation to the order of attachment, writ petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs