IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8839 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 42, S/O. KRISHAN EZHUTHASSAN, CHORAKKATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, VARADIAM.P.O., AVANUR, THRISSUR. BY MR.DINESH R.SHENOY, ADVOCATE. MR.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTHRA. BY MR. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. MR. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.8839 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is mainly against Ext.P17, an order issued by the 1st respondent cancelling allotment of a plot in the Velakode Industrial Development Area, having an extent of 8 cents situated in Sy.Nos.191/1 & 191/3. 2. The plot in question was allotted to the petitioner by Ext.P1 order dated 11/05/2006. Ext.P2 is the agreement that was entered into between the parties. Ext.P3 is a sketch showing the lie of the plot. It is the case of the petitioner that the unit could not be set up within the time allotted, and that at his request, the time for setting up of the unit was extended till 31/03/2009. The petitioner submits that for reasons which were beyond his control, this commitment could not be honoured. Though not as per the agreed schedule, according to him, substantial progress has been made and the Pollution Control Board is scheduled to inspect the premises on the 25th of this month. According to the petitioner, at that stage, the allotment was cancelled by Ext.P17. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. WP(C) No.8839/2009 -2- 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader also in this matter. 4. From the facts as pleaded in this writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has taken earnest efforts to honour his commitment and even according to the petitioner, all that he needs is a further period of three months from 31/03/2009. If that be so, I feel that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner, so that if possible, he can set up the unit. If a contrary view is taken, the result will be that entire endeavour of the petitioner will become futile, which should be avoided, unless there are laches on the part of the petitioner, which is absent in this case. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that Ext.P17 will be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from 31/03/2009 and thereafter, if the petitioner has set up the unit as undertaken by him, the said order will be recalled. It is made clear that on the other hand, if the petitioner fails to set up the unit with three months as aforesaid, Ext.P17 will stand automatically revived and it will be open to the respondents to take further action in pursuance to Ext.P17. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg