IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20210 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CONSULTANTS (INDI) PVT.LTD, SHED NO.C-21, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT.E.VIJAYAN WARRIER. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER,KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE HEAD-I.E. DIVISION, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,P.B.NO,50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20210 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, carrying on the business of sale of stationary and statutory books, check books, company balance sheet and other printing material for commercial use. They have been allotted a shed in an industrial estate by the respondents. They have been doing the business in that shed for the past more then 35 years. Now, they have been served with Ext. P10 notice dated 2-6-2010 directing the petitioner to show cause why the shed should not be resumed for non-user of the shed for the purpose for which it was allotted, with a further threat that if the explanation received is found unsatisfactory, possession of the land will be taken without any further notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, Ext. P8 notice for the same purpose was issued on 22-3-2010 to which the petitioner had submitted Ext. P9 explanation dated 26-3-2010. Without passing any further orders pursuant to Ext. P8, now again Ext. P10 notice has been issued by the Head Office, is the complaint raised by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibits P8 and P10 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pass orders on Ext. P1 submitted by the petitioner. (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibits P8 and P10.” 2. I have heard the standing counsel for the respondents also. I am of opinion that the respondents cannot resume the shed W.P.C. No. 20210/2010 -: 2 :- without first passing a final order, considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext. P9 shall be treated as a reply to both Exts.P8 and P10. The appropriate authority as between respondents 1 and 2 shall pass final orders considering Ext. P9 explanation and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Until after one week of service of the final order on the petitioner, the shed allotted to the petitioner shall not be resumed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.