IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13017 of 2006(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.THOMAS VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, ENFIT RUBBER FACTORY, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR POST, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANADING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED(INDUSTRIAL ESTATE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1&4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SC, SIDCO FOR R2,3 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF CORPORATION'S RULES FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHEDS IN INDUSTRIAL ESTATES KERALA, ON HIRE-PURCHASE BASIS 1975. P2: TRUE COPY OF G.O. DT.27.1.03 ISSUED BY R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF R2'S LETTER DT.28.6.05 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.17.2.06 OF R5 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF R2. P5: TRUE COPY OF CORPORATION'S RULES FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHEDS/LAND IN INDUSTRIAL ESTATES KERALA, ON OUT RIGHT PURCHASE BASIS, 1996. P6: TRUE COPY OF G.O. DT.2.5.05 ISSUED BY R1. P7: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF SIDCO IN W.P.(C) NO.28730/03 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(a): PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R2 DT.27.1.1993. R2(b): PHOTOCOPY OF MINUTES OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE DT.13.7.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 which is a revised proceedings by which the original sale price of Rs.14 lakhs and odd for the two industrial sheds allotted to the petitioner was revised and refixed at Rs.5,06,527/-. The sheds were allotted to the petitioner in 1992 on hire purchase basis. However, petitioner did not make any payment of hire charges and consequently the allotment was terminated on 25.3.1997. When petitioner challenged the same, this court directed the SIDCO to consider outright sale of the property to the petitioner based on the norms then prevailed. Based on the said judgment, petitioner was given option to purchase the said property for Rs.1,40,738/-. However, Government constituted a Committee for reconsideration of purchase price and in the revised proceedings, the property was offered to the petitioner at a price less than over Rs.9 lakhs of the original price. It is this order that is under challenge in this W.P.(C). 2. The petitioner's case is that the revised price fixed is against norms and the same is not correct. I do not think there is any justification for this 2 court to interfere with Ext.P4 because the area involved is 821.69 sq. metres which is around 21 cents of land and two sheds thereon. The difference between original price fixed by the SIDCO and the price fixed by the Committee is over Rs.9 lakhs. If petitioner has no interest in the matter, petitioner can opt out of the deal. I do not find any merit in the W.P. and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is given six weeks' time to pay balance amount with interest in accordance with Ext.P4, if he wants to take over the property. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms