Kerala High Court
Nalinakshy vs The Managing Director on 17 July, 2020
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1942
WP(C).No.23214 OF 2012(B)
PETITIONER :
NALINAKSHY,
AGED 66 YEARS,
W/O.KUTTAN, PROPRIETRESS, MODERN DRESSES,
MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KADINAMKULAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT 'CHANDANAM',
KOCHUMANAKKATTIL VEEDU, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T-
298, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD.NO.T-298, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH
BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17-07-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
WP(C).No.23214 OF 2012(B)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of July 2020 Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Lok Ayukta and also seeks for a direction to restore possession of Shed No.7 in Kadinamkulam Mini Industrial Estate to the petitioner apart from seeking for a direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the forceful dispossession of petitioner's business unit.
2. The petitioner's case is that she was an allottee under the first respondent of Shed No.7 under a hire purchase scheme to run a ready-made garment unit from the year 1990 onwards and that she had been running this unit profitably by paying the hire charges regularly. According to the petitioner, since there were allotments to process clay products in an around her shop, there was severe nuisance due to which she could not conduct her furniture unit resulting in Ext.P1 dated 16.07.2009, the first respondent intimated arrears of Rs.1,15,957/- to be remitted within 15 days. She was also issued with Ext.P2 within two days of Ext.P1 by the first respondent directing her to recommence the functioning of the unit within 15 days of receipt of the said notice WP(C).No.23214 OF 2012(B) 3 failing which it was threatened that the respondents would resume possession of the unit from the petitioner. By Ext.P3, petitioner submitted a reply and pointed out that the arrears arose not on account of her default but due to the allotment of clay making units on either side of petitioner's shed. However, by Ext.P4 dated 06.09.2010, it was intimated to the petitioner that since she had not cleared the arrears, possession of Shed No.7 was taken over by the first respondent. Since the taking over of possession of the shed from the petitioner was allegedly without any authority and illegal, the petitioner moved the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.1915/2010 and by order dated 14.08.2012, the Lok Ayukta dismissed the complaint after finding that the petitioner had closed down the garment manufacturing unit on her own volition and also that the respondents had not caused any damage to the petitioner. It is also held that the Lok Ayukta is not expected to quantify the damages even if it is assumed that any damage was caused to the complainant. This writ petition challenges the said findings.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.J.Jayakumar and the learned Sr. Government Pleader Sri.S.Gopinath.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the WP(C).No.23214 OF 2012(B) 4 closure of the garment unit for a long period of time is a clear violation of the rules that govern the allotment of shed to the petitioner. On physical verification by the field officers of the respondents, it was found that the petitioner had closed down the shop for a long period of time and also that hire charges to an amount of Rs.1,21,528/- up to May, 2010 was in arrears and in spite of repeated reminders, neither the amount was paid, nor the unit restarted. It was in such circumstances that Shed No.7 allotted to the petitioner was resumed and re-allotted to another person on 14.06.2020 on the basis of priority list maintained by the first respondent. It is also the case of the learned Government Pleader that the person to whom the shed was re-allotted has not even been made a party and he being a necessary party, the same is also another ground which warrants dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have considered the arguments in detail. I find that the resumption of possession of shop from the petitioner took place as early as on 14.06.2010 and re-allotted to a 3 rd party. Obviously, the 3rd party is conducting the business there till date. The petitioner has practically admitted that she has not been conducting her business at the time of resumption of possession or at the time of receipt of Ext.P2 notice. She also does not have a WP(C).No.23214 OF 2012(B) 5 case that after receipt of Ext.P2 notice, she had either conducted the business in the shed allotted to her or even that she had paid arrears as demanded in Ext.P6. All factors have been weighed and considered in Ext.P7. The conclusion arrived at therein cannot be termed palpably erroneous warranting an interference. Non- impleadment of the subsequent allottee also stares at the face of the petitioner. No effective orders can be passed behind the back of that new allottee of Shed No.7. In such a view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 order and I find that the reasons given by the Lok Ayukta to dismiss the complaint are justified and valid.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C).No.23214 OF 2012(B) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P3 : COPY OF REPLY DATED 06.08.2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL RECEIPT. P4 : COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED 06.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P5 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.09.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2012 IN COMPLAINT NO.1915/2010 C OF KERALA LOK AYUKTA