IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1177 of 2009 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36750/2008 Dated 31/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SCHIFFLIES INDIA LTD., PLOT NO.244, DEVELOPMENT PLOTS, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, COCHIN - REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - K.M.SEBASTINE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, ERNAKULAM. 4. EMMY AGUSTUS, M/S. EMMA EXPORTERS, DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KALAMASSERY. 5. BETTY THOMAS, M/S. EMMA EXPORTERS, DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KALAMASSERY. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R4 & R5 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 1177 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers: “a) call for the records of the case leading upto Exhibit P10 and also the necessary permission granted by the respondents 2 and 3 to the respondents 4 and 5 for change of activity and for the induction of two new partners and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith resume the land allotted to the respondents 4 and 5 in the development plot, Kalamassery since they have not complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment and also in the Rules for allotment. c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the W.A.No.1177 of 2009 - 2 - respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's request for allotment of additional land and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The learned Single Judge after elaborately considering the matter and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also the learned Government Pleader, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: “(a) The 2nd respondent Director of Industries and Commerce shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner as regards the change of user sanctioned in favour of respondents 4 and 5 as per Ext.P10 [Ext.R4(c)]. (b) In doing so, the 2nd respondent shall consider whether such change of user as such might result in any prejudice or detriment being caused to the garment manufacturing unit run by the petitioner. (c) If the Director comes to the conclusion that such prejudice or detriment would be caused by the change of user permitted in favour of respondents 4 and 5 then there would be no restraint on the Director W.A.No.1177 of 2009 - 3 - revoking the permission already granted. (d) Further, it shall also be open to the Director to consider any other steps that may have to be taken by respondents 4 and 5 to see that no hardship is caused to the petitioners. In the alternative, the Director shall consider whether any other suitable extent of land situated in the vicinity could be allotted in favour of the petitioner, satisfying its claim for expansion of the unit as made in Exts.P3 and P5. (e) Orders in this regard shall be passed by the Director within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents 4 and 5 may be permitted to continue with the civil construction which they have already undertaken. But, they shall not start any activity except on permission being granted by the Director.” 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the second respondent is again relegated to consider the matter afresh, no meaningful purpose will be served since the order of the second respondent was under challenge. On a suggestion that if the first respondent can consider the matter afresh, learned counsel appearing for both sides and the learned senior Government Pleader W.A.No.1177 of 2009 - 4 - agree that the directions given by the learned Single Judge can be considered by the first respondent instead of the second respondent. 4. Yet another apprehension of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that some of the findings in the judgment would stand in the way of the first respondent in considering the matter in an open mind. We do not find any basis on that apprehension also. When the first respondent considers the matter, the same will be done untrammelled by the findings, if any, in the judgment, but taking note of the directions of the learned Single Judge. 5. Therefore, we dispose of the writ appeal directing the first respondent to consider the matter as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by either party with notice to both sides. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns