IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29511 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- OLAVAKKODE SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE INDUSTRIES FORUM REG.NO.CA128/2011 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,OLAVAKKODE,PALAKKAD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SIBICHIN THOMAS,AGED 43,S/O.A.V.THOMAS,MANAGING PARTNER VAC RUBBER KRAFTS,INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,OLAVA- KKODE R/AT VALLADY,PADINJAREKKATHIL AKATHETHARA, NSS ENGINEERING COLLEGE POST, PALAKKAD 678 008. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PB NO.50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL LINES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. THE ESTATE MANAGER, SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (SIDCO) OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 731. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SC FOR SIDCO GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29511/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROADS OF INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLAVAKKODE. EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(MS)473/2009/RD DATED 23.11.2009. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF CONSTITUENT MEETING OF THE PETITIONER FORUM DATED 11.11.2010. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER FORM NO.CA 128/11 DT.30.3.11. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND BYE LAW OF THE PETITIONER FORUM. EXHIBIT P5(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)1051/2010/ID DATED 21.7.2010. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF R-1 NO.IE/GEN./FUND DATED 2.6.2011. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF PETITIONER DATED 28.6.11. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF R1 NO.IE/GEN/FUND OLA.2011 DATED 6.7.11. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF R4 DATED 18.10.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29511 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The members of the society are the industrial units which are functioning within the industrial estate of Olavakkode of the 1st respondent. According to the standing counsel, forum was formed pursuant to the policy decision taken by the 1st respondent to have such an organization as a representative body of the industrial units for ventilating their common grievances and for their welfare. It is stated that, of late, there were certain internal disputes among the members of the forum. When this was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, 1st respondent issued Ext.P8. This communication reads thus; “With reference to the above we would like to inform that the activities of the forum at Industrial Estate, Olavakkode is ceased till a decision is made by the Board of Directors.” 2. It is on receipt of Ext.P8, the writ petition has been filed mainly contending that the 1st respondent has no power to order the cessation of functioning of the petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. WPC No. 29511/11 :2 : 3. When this writ petition came up for admission, the case was adjourned for the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. It is clarified by him that what was intended by the 1st respondent was that, in view of the internal disputes within the petitioner, the 1st respondent will no longer recognise the petitioner as a representative body of the industrial units and that until the matter is settled, the 1st respondent will only deal with the individual units. It is stated that, this is all that was intended to be conveyed by Ext.P8. 4. While the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has unilaterally ordered liquidation of the petitioner, from the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, it is evident that all that they intended was to stop dealing with the petitioner for the time being. Therefore, recording the submission of the 1st respondent as above, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp