IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23329 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TRAVANCORE RAYONS LTD., RAYONPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH. PIN 683 543. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANDAS SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPTT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND COCHIN 682 009. 3. ESTATE MANAGER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 009. ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS FOR R3 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R3 SRI.BINU MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R3 SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH FOR R3 SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.7.2009 IN CP.NO.14/2002. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 10.8.1998. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE ARREARS OF RENT. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF NOTICE NO.EM10/C/L/1782/52 DATED 12.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 23329 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P4 letter dated 12.8.2011 issued by the Secretary, Cochin Port Trust calling upon the petitioner to surrender possession of the demised premises. 2. When this writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.Abraham Markose, learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Port Trust submitted that the Cochin Port Trust is taking steps to issue a notice in terms of Section 4 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 and that the petitioner will be evicted only in terms of the said enactment. Such being the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner can have any grievance against Exhibit P4. I therefore find no reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly closed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vgs