IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32270 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.RAJEEV, PROPRIETOR, SOUTH INDIAN REFRACTORIES FUNCTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE FOR CERAMICS. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (S) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE KERALA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT COMPANY LTD. (SIDCO), TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA CERAMICS LIMITED, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. R1, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R3, R4 BY SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.32270 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner's father was alloted a shed in an industrial estate. Later, the Government decided to lease out the entire estate to CAPEX. The petitioner, after the demise of his father, was carrying on the activity of running the ceramic unit in the shed alloted to his father. He moved this Court filing W.P(C). 11822/08 seeking different directions, including that he may not be evicted. This Court dismissed that writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment, after specific finding that the lease agreements between the petitioner's father and the Government was not a perpetual one and the lessee was bound to restore the premises to the lessor in good condition after rectification of damages, if any. This Court noted that the period of lease had expired long ago. It was specifically laid that the petitioner has no right to hold on the property even after the expiry of the lease period and that he is not entitled WPC.32270/09 2 to the relief sought for in that writ petition. With the dismissal of that writ petition, the petitioner stands concluded by those findings which have become final. 2.In the last paragraph of Ext.P5 judgment, it was stated as follows: “If the petitioner wants to purchase the property, it is upto him to approach the Government and it is for the Government to take appropriate decision in the matter taking precaution not to cause any impediment to the public purpose for which it is sought to be now transferred to the 5th respondent. I do not express any opinion on the same”. 3.Following that, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation before the Minister for Revenue and Ext.P7 representation before the Secretary, Revenue Department, stating that he is prepared to purchase the area of 50 cents. I do not deem it appropriate for this Court to further issue any order in any manner interfering with the flow of consequences in terms of WPC.32270/09 3 the distress proceedings which were subject matter of Ext.P5, though, even this judgment, would not stand in the way of the Government taking any decision following the representations of the petitioner. But in view of the fact that no directions were issued at all in Ext.P5 judgment, requiring the Government to consider the matter, I do not find it necessary for this Court to issue any further direction. Without prejudice to the Government passing orders on Ext.P6 or Ext.P7, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.13/11.