IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No. 1131 of 2008 ---------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2396/2008 DATED 08/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ P. MOIDEEN HAJI, T.P. BEEVI HOUSE, MILL ROAD, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR. (PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MYTHRI BHAVAN, THANA, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESP0NDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMNET OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1131 of 2008 & I.A.No.484 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2396 of 2008 dated 8th February, 2008. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. 2. The facts in brief are: The petitioner was allotted an industrial plot way back in 1995. The purpose of allotting the industrial plot was to facilitate the petitioner to start an industry and thereby generate employment in the State. Petitioner has not even made any efforts to put up a structure in the plot allotted to him for the purpose for which it is granted. Accordingly the respondents have taken appropriate proceedings to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and after such cancellation in fact allotted the plot to another person, sometime in the year 2004 itself. 3. The writ petitioner primarily contends, that, since he was facing some financial difficulty he could not put up structures in the plot allotted to him. That contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is negatived by the learned Single Judge by going through the terms and W.A.No.1131 of 2008 2 conditions of the allotment that was made to the petitioner. 4. In our opinion, we do not see any justification in the claim made by the petitioner. It is an undisputed fact that the industrial plot was allotted to the petitioner solely with an intention that he would put up an industry and thereby not only generate employment but also assist the State Government in boosting its industrial policy. Since the purpose of allotment itself is defeated by the petitioner by not putting up any structures, the respondents were fully justified in cancelling the allotment of the plot made in favour of the petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge rightly appreciating this aspect of the matter has not come to the aid of the petitioner. We are in full agreement with the reasoning and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns