IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12509 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. V.A.TREADS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BARAAS COMPLEX, PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRANAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 007. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.MATHEWS RAJU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD – 1. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12509/2011-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.3. DTD. 01/02/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT.D 11/11/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER ACCORDING SANCTION ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALAKKAD DTD. 31/12/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT.D 14/01/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF RESUMPTION ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 07/08/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.25945/2009 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 08/06/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE BILLS EVIDENCING THE PURCHASE OF STEEL AND CEMENT DTD. 26.08.2010, 4.9.10, 10.9.10, 14.10.10, 18.10.10, 21.10.10, 23.10.10, 4.11.10, 9.11.10, 26.11.10 AND 28.11.2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF REQUISITE FEE ISSUED BY THE KSEB DTD. 18/02/2011. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 25/11/2010. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER REVIVING THE ORDER OF RESUMPTION DTD. 24/03/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).12509/2011 ....................... Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order of allotment issued on 1.2.2007 allotting an extent of 45.40 cents of land in the New Industrial Development Area, Pudussery Central Village, Palakkad Taluk, to the petitioner for setting up a Tyre retreading Industry. On 7.8.2009, Ext.P5 order of resumption was passed stating that though as per the allotment rules, the land could not have been kept unutilised for a period of more than six months, petitioner kept the land unutilized for the last 30 months. On that basis, the land was ordered to be resumed. Ext.P5 order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C). 24945/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment paragraph 3 of which reads as under. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking a lenient view, I direct the second respondent to grant the petitioner three more months' time to start the industry, for which the plot has been allotted to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, Ext.P3 order shall be kept in abeyance. If the petitioner starts the business W.P.(C).12509/11 2 within the said time Ext.P3 would stand cancelled. However, if the petitioner is unable to start the industry within the time stipulated, Ext.P3 would revive and petitioner shall surrender vacant possession of the plot to the second respondent immediately after three months unless the respondents in their discretion are prepared to grant further extension for valid reasons.” 2. It is obvious from Ext.P6 judgment dated 8.6.2010 that the petitioner should have started the Industry within the three months time allowed by this Court. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not start the Industry as directed in Ext.P6. Therefore, they issued Ext.P10 order dated 24.3.2010 reviving Ext.P5. It is challenging Ext.P10 that this writ petition is filed. 3. Even going by the pleadings and from the materials produced before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner has only mobilized the materials for the construction of an industrial shed. There is no case that the Industry has been started within the time stipulated in Ext.P6 judgment or thereafter. In such a situation, in view of the fact that the directions in Ext.P6 judgment have attained W.P.(C).12509/11 3 finality, the respondents cannot be faulted for having issued Ext.P10 resuming the land in question. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. 4. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in making an application for enlargement of time specified in Ext.P6 judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs