IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29103 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOOD LUCK METAL INDUSTRIES, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL PARK, ANGAMALY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.O.BABY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ESTATE MANAGER, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MUDIKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.8.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 29103/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION. P2. COPY OF THE SKETCH. P3. COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT ORDER DTD.13.2.07 OF PLOT NO.23. P4. -DO- 24. P5. -DO- 25 P6. -DO- 42 P7. -DO- 43 P8. -DO- 44 P9. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.6.1.2007. P10. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.28.2.2007. P11. COPY OF THE TENER NOTIFICATION DTD.3.8.2007. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.23.7.2007. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.29103 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to tenders invited for allotment of plots in the industrial park of the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. at Angamaly, the petitioner was allotted six plots. The petitioner paid 60 per cent of the amount for such allotment as required by the tender conditions. But despite request by the petitioner, the 1st respondent did not give possession of the allotted plots to the petitioner without assigning any reasons. At the same time, the 1st respondent has issued notification inviting tenders for allotment of other plots in the industrial park. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents to hand over the possession of six plots to the petitioner unit in the industrial park at Angamaly as ordered in Ext.P3 to P8. b) Issue writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from allotting any plot to any person or agencies in the industrial Park at Angamaly under SIDCO without complying Exts.P3 to P8 orders and handing over possession of six plots to the petitioner unit. c) Order an enquiry against the respondents and order appropriate action against them for delaying the handing over of the possession of the 6 plots to the petitioner industrial unit by Exts.P3 to P8.” 2. Now an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 giving two compromise proposals as follows: 2 “3. The first proposal is to provide balance of 16.845 cents to make up 60 cents in the very same Estate of SIDCO. 4. The second proposal is to cancel the present allotment and to make fresh allotment of 60 cents lying contiguously in the very same estate of SIDCO at the same price of the earlier allotment.” 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the second proposal is acceptable to he petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Respondents 1 and 2 shall cancel the present allotment and make fresh allotment of 60 cents of land lying contiguously in the very same industrial estate of the 1st respondent at the same price as in the earlier allotment. Orders in this regard shall be issued and possession handed over to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, subject to completion of other formalities by the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge