IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20921 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. GLOBAL POLYMERS, PLOT NO.47, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KALAMASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.P.I.ABDUL NAZAR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & OMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20921 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T A plot along with a factory building therein was allotted to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent in an industrial area for starting an industry by Ext. P1 dated 24-4-2009. But, now, by Ext. P12 order, it has been directed to resume possession of the plot alleging non-user by the petitioner within the time prescribed in the agreement executed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been earnestly and diligently taking all necessary steps for starting the industry and the delay is only on account of the procedural formalities required and not on account of any wilful laches on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext. P12 is totally unsustainable. He further points out that the only reason stated in Ext. P12 is that the petitioner has not produced a power allocation letter. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the power allocation letter, copy of which is produced as Ext. P10. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P12 order of the 3rd respondent. ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide sufficient and reasonable time to the petitioner to start the industrial unit in the plot allotted to it, as per Ext. P1, after getting supply of electricity from KSEB.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the facts and circumstances narrated in the writ petition, I am of opinion that the matter should be looked into by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the matter and pass orders in respect W.P.C. No. 20921/2010 -: 2 :- thereof as expeditiously as possible. For this purpose, the petitioner shall file a suitable application before the 2nd respondent within two weeks. Until the 2nd respondent passes orders on the application to be submitted by the petitioner as directed above, Ext. P12 order shall not be implemented. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.