IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 16630 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BINDHU JEEVAN, PROPRIETRIX, M/S. KATHIR FOODS, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, CHEMBANNUR, ANGAMALY SOUTH, PIN-683 573, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIKHAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, SIDCO BUILDING, KADAVANTHRA, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. M/S. KANSON FOOD (P) LTD., 2, DEVELOPMENT PLOT, INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANGAMALY-683 573, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16630/2010C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A12-4553/00 DTD. 12/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A12/6250/03 DTD. 7/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE SELECT LIST APPEARED IN THE GAZETTE GO(P) NO.37/2010/TRANS. DTD. 30/03/2010. P3: COPY OF GO.(MS) NO.15/79/P&ARD DTD. 2/07/1979 REGARDING THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOT IN THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT. P4: COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM DTD. 28/05/2007. P5: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE VACANT LAND OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5/10/2009 IN W.A.NO.1940 OF 2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P7: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT ON 4/01/2010. P7(A): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB/GEN/2010-11/135 DTD. 15/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ANGAMALY. P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PH-1-7084/10 DTD. 15/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY. P10: COPY OF THE INSPECTOR REPORT FOR THE INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 11/08/2009 IN WP(C) NO.36204 OF 2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.16630 OF 2010(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the Ist day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 and for a direction to consider the application made by the petitioner for allotment of more land cancelling the allotment made to the 4th respondent. 2. On an earlier occasion, producing Ext.P2, herein as Ext.P8, petitioner filed WP(c).No.36204/2007, mainly seeking to quash the said order. By Ext.R4(a) judgment dated 11th August, 2009, that writ petition was dismissed, paragraph 9 and 10 of which reads as under. “On the material produced, I do not think that this is a case where this Court should interfere with the equitable distribution of available land done by the 2nd respondent. As already stated, the fact remains that there are two applications available. Irrespective of the point of time at which these applications were made, initially 18 cents is proposed to be allotted to the petitioner and 12 cents to the 4th respondent. Subsequently, there has been a reduction in the extent of land available. Therefore, proportionate reduction in the area alloted was made and 13 cents was ordered to be alloted to the petitioner and 10 cents to the 4th respondent. This allotment cannot be said to be an arbitrary one, warranting to be interfered WPC.No. 16630/2010 :2 : with in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention raised by the petitioner that the 4th respondent is not using the plot of land allotted to it, is also not worth acceptance in the nature of the explanation offered by the respondents and the disputed questions raised by both sides in the respective counter affidavits filed. Therefore, essentially, this is a case of equitable distribution of available land which has been made by the authorities. Therefore, I do not think that this Court exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the allotment thus made. “ 3. Against the aforesaid judgment, petitioner filed W.A. No.1940/2009, that appeal was dismissed as withdrawn as per Ext.P6 judgment rendered on 5th October, 2009. A reading of the judgment shows that, after arguing the appeal for sometime, on behalf of the petitioner permission was sought for withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to seek remedies before appropriate form. Accepting the aforesaid submission, the appeal was dismissed, directing that if a representation is made, the same will be dealt with untrammeled by the findings in paragraph 10 of Ext.R4(a) judgment. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation and that representation is pending consideration of the first WPC.No. 16630/2010 :3 : respondent. It is during the pendency of the aforesaid representation, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 and for allotment of land. 5. Having regard to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment the only relief that can be granted is to direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon with notice to the parties concerned. This the first respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/