Partly allowed

Jeevankumar v. Kancor Flour and Extracts Ltd.

Kerala HC6 Jul 2009WP(C)/5698/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions concerning land allotment at Angamaly Industrial Development Area. The Court directed the District Industries Centre to consider the petitioner's application and dispose of it on merit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for land allotment and dispose of the same on merit, after giving an opportunity of being heard, within three months.

Jeevankumar Vs Kancor Flour and Extracts Ltd. — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 5698 of 2007(C)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

JEEVANKUMAR V.S., PROPRIETOR, DECCAN SPICES, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. KANCOR FLOURS AND EXTRACTS LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶14

2. MOTHERS AGRO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCOR FLOURS AND EXTRACTS LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶15

*THE NAME/ADDRESS OF 2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS

¶16

“MOTHERS AGRO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DT”

¶17

*VIDE ORDER DT. 05/11/07 IN I.A. NO. 14589/07.

¶18

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

R2 BY MR. N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. T.K. VIPIN DAS.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS. 5879 OF 2007 & 35315 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C). NO.5698/2007-C:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 11/11/1998 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R.3.

¶25

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/01/2006 FROM R.3. TO PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/03/2006 FROM -DO- TO -DO-.

¶26

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/07/2006 FROM PETITIONER TO R.3. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO: B2-5486/96 DTD. 16/11/2006 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO: B2-12705/98 DTD. 30/11/2006 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/01/2007 TO THE R.3.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

W.P.(C) Nos. 5698, 5879 & 35315 OF 2007

¶33

---------------------------------------- Dated, 6^th day of July, 2009

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

In all these writ petitions, the parties are one and the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had approached the 3^rd respondent for allotment of land in development area, Angamaly, but lands were allotted in favour of the 2^nd respondent overlooking his application. The main controversy is with respect to the property given to the 2^nd respondent which was resumed from Ist respondent. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court praying inter alia to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and also to issue a writ of mandamus or

¶36

such other writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to allot land to the petitioner in the industrial development area, Angamaly.

¶37

Ext.P1 is the application filed by the petitioner

¶38

before the 3^rd respondent in WPC No. 5698 &

¶39

WPC 5698 , 5879 &35

¶40

-:2:-

¶41

5879/2007. When the above two writ petitions were pending before this Court, he came to know that Ext.P8 order was passed on the strength of the direction given by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2376/2007. Therefore, he preferred Ext.P7 reminder to the 3^rd respondent. But neither Ext.P7 reminder nor Ext.P1 application filed was not considered by the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

The 3^rd respondent in Writ Petition No. 35315/2007 has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P1 application dated 1.10.2003 requesting to allot 50 cents of land at Industrial Development Area Angamaly. But according to the 3^rd respondent, due to non availability of land, that application was kept pending along with other applications. It is also stated that the petitioner had also set up yet another unit at Industrial Development Plot, Angamaly in the name of his wife Smt. Bindhu Jeevakumar in the name and style of M/s.Kathir Foods. On 1.8.2003, Smt, Bindhu Jeevakumar had also applied for the allotment of

¶43

WPC 5698 , 5879 &35

¶44

-:3:-

¶45

additional land at Industrial Development Plot Angamaly for expanding her existing unit. It is further stated that that application was considered along with the other applications on a later date and allotted 13 cents of land in favour of the wife of the petitioner as per Ext.R3(a). Another plot was also given to the petitioner as per Ext.R3 (b). It is also stated that 21 cents of land with building are still lying unutilized by the petitioner. According to the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent he had considered the pending applications filed by similarly situated persons and an interview was conducted on 20.1.2006. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent in W.P.C.No.5879/2007, it is stated that in order to allot the land, all the applicants who applied for land at the industrial development area Angamaly were called for an interview on 20.1.2006 to select the eligible entrepreneurs. But the petitioner did not attend the interview. It was also stated that the petitioner was informed that he would be called for next interview. But

¶46

WPC 5698 , 5879 &35

¶47

-:4:-

¶48

due to the non availability of land, no interview was conducted by the 3^rd respondent thereafter.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted that the petitioner could not attend the interview on 20.1.2006 due to health reasons. Still then, it is the case of the petitioner that while these applications are pending for allotment, overlooking his request, lands were allotted to the 2^nd respondent. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the contention raised in the counter affidavit, submitted that the lands allotted to the petitioner has not been fully utilized by him and a portion of the same is lying unutilized. However, the petitioner was not interviewed and there was no assessment regarding his eligibility for the allotment of land. No reason is assigned for not considering the applications in time. If that be so, I am of the view that without entering into any finding on merits or demerits of the case, the 3^rd respondent can be directed to consider the petitioner's Ext.P1 application and Ext.P7 reminder.

¶50

WPC 5698 , 5879 &35

¶51

-:5:-

¶52

In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P1 in WPC Nos. 5879/2007 and 5698/2007 filed by the petitioner for allotment of land and dispose of the same on merit after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as all necessary parties, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioner.

¶53

The writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶54

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

kvm/-

WPC 5698 , 5879 &35

-:6:-

V.K.MOHANAN, J .

O.P.No.

JUDGMENT

Dated:..

Jeevankumar v. Kancor Flour and Extracts Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevankumar v. Kancor Flour and Extracts Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Abdul Quadir Vs Union of India

P. Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

V.Ravindranathan Nair Vs State Bank of Travancore

Mariyamma Abraham Vs Union of India

K.P.Ramakrishna Panicker Vs State Bank of Tranvancore

V.X.Sebastian Vs State of Kerala