Kerala High Court
Samuel John vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2005
Author: S. Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012/22ND ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 9213 of 2007 (V)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
SAMUEL JOHN, MANAGING PARTNER,
GOOD SHEPHERDED RUBBER WORKS,
WHITE HOUSE, 4/942-A1, PUTHUR ROAD,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL,
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.50, HOUSING BOARD
BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V. VIJULAL.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP,SC,
BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 9213 of 2007 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER IE(4)/OLA/(5) DATED 30/05/2005 RENDERED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 14/03/ID DATED 27/01/2003.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 04/12/2006
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA,
PALAKKAD BRANCH, DATED 28/12/2006.
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 03/01/2007 FROM THE
ASST. DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER, TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
PALAKKAD.
EXT.P7 COPY OF THE QUOTATION GIVEN BY M/S.R.R. MACHINERIES &
ENGINEERING TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26/02/2007.
EXT.P7A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM M/S.BUILCON INDIA
MACHINES (P) LTD., DATED 02/01/2007.
EXT.P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/01/2007 FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08/01/2007.
EXT.P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2007.
EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ORDER IE(4)OLA/5 DATED 05/03/2007 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES,
DATED 21/06/2006.
EXT.P13 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.22319/F2/06 DATED 21/02/2007 OF THE
SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (F) DEPARTMENT.
EXT.P14 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR IE GENL.6147/2000 DATED 14/02/2007
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.9213 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was allotted 9 sheds in the Industrial Estate, Olavakkode, by the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation. The petitioner claims to have started an industrial establishment by name Good Shepherd Rubber Works. The sheds were originally allotted to the petitioner's deceased father in 1960 and after the death of his father the same were transferred to the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, due to strike of labourers the establishment was closed for a long time. Later, due to lack of working capital also the establishment could not function for sometime. The petitioner's application for outright sale of the sheds was rejected which was upheld by this Court. But even thereafter the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the sheds. By Ext.P4, the petitioner was directed to commence the industry for which purpose the sheds were allotted, within W.P.(C)No.9213 of 2007 -2- one week. But the petitioner did not. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a project for a new product; but by Exts.P8, P11 & P13 the petitioner was informed that the petitioner's representation for approval of the new project and product change could not be considered. The petitioner submits that other defunct units were given two months' time by Ext.P14 with effect from 15.2.2007 to restart, which was also not granted to the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i) issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading up to Ext. P8, P11 and P13 and quash the same.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondents to consider and grant the benefit of outright sale in respect of shed Nos. B1, B2, B3, B4; C5, C6, C7, C8 and C10 ( 9 in numbers) in the Industrial Estate Olavakkode giving the benefit of Ext. P2 G.O. forthwith;
iii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 2nd respondent to approve the request submitted by the petitioner for product change and the new project submitted by the petitioner for staring an inter locking bricks W.P.(C)No.9213 of 2007 -3- manufacturing unit in the Industrial estate, Olavakkode and pass necessary orders according permission to the petitioner by giving the consent letter;"
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent taking the stand that the petitioner is presently in unauthorised occupation of the sheds in question. According to them, the industrial establishment in the name of M/s. Good Shepherd Rubber Company started in those sheds were closed down decades ago and the occupancy of the sheds were terminated because of non-payment of rental dues and the sheds are kept idle without any industrial activities therein. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that instead of running an industrial unit, the petitioner had been using them as a cement godown, for all these years. They would submit that as the petitioner's unit was a defunct one and as the petitioner has become an unauthorized occupant, the 2nd respondent issued notice for eviction, despite which the petitioner did not take any earnest efforts to start the W.P.(C)No.9213 of 2007 -4- industrial activities in the sheds. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner was given sufficient time to commence industrial activities in the sheds and for the last 10 years and more he fail to do the same. Therefore, according to them, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The petitioner has not chosen to file any reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. The very object of establishing industrial estates is to promote industries. The respondents cannot allow the sheds allotted for the purpose of running an industry idle for years together depriving other entrepreneurs from using the sheds for a successful industry. If they do so that will defeat the very object of establishing the industrial estate. Admittedly the petitioner has not been doing any business in the sheds for decades together. The petitioner has also failed to pay the rent due in respect thereof. In the above W.P.(C)No.9213 of 2007 -5- circumstances, I do not think that I will be justified in interfering with the action taken by the respondents in evicting the petitioner from the sheds. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner, who could not run an industry in the sheds for decades together and has been using the same as a godown. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/