The petitioner sought quashing of an allotment order and declaration of possession rights regarding an industrial unit. The court held that the petitioner, an alleged partner and not the original allottee, lacked locus standi to challenge the resumption order and had no right to claim possession, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936
WP(C).No.13889 of 2013 (I)
PETITIONER:
E.B.MANO,S/O.EDWARD,4/520,VENGANOOR PANCHAYAT, VALLAKAD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1. DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. M.VIDHU,THOPPIL HOUSE,T.C.NO 30/1533,PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVEENDRAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2014 THE COURT ON 03-09-2014, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No.13889 of 2013 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-6-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNPOWLEDGEMENT.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 8-5-2008.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT DATED 16-11-2009.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14-3-2012.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ENTREPRENEURS MEMORANDUM.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14-5-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30-5-2013.
EXHIBIT P10-TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S WATCH MANUIFACTURING UNIT.
EXHIBIT P11-TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILLS WITH RESPECT TO THE UNIT IN PLOT NO.4.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXT.R3(a):COPY OF THE TAKING OVER OF POSSESSION OF LAND RESUMED FROM M/S.POPULAR ENTERPRISES.
EXT.R3(b):COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.H/4791 DATED 14.5.2013 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(c):COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12.11.2013 SENT BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE.
EXT.R3(d):COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY MURALEEDHARAN NAIR DATED 28.12.2011 TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE.
EXT.R3(e):COPY OF THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.M/3213 DATED NIL 2.2013 ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER, DIC.
pto
WP(C).No.13889 of 2013 (I)
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
pk
**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.13889 of 2013
Dated this the 3rd day of September 2014
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed for quashing Ext.P8 and to
declare that the petitioner and one Sri.B.Muraleedharan Nair is entitled to possess and manage the industrial unit under the name and Style Popular Enterprises in Plot No.4 in the Industrial Area at Kadakampally village, Thiruvananthapuram District and for other consequential reliefs. Ext.P8 is an order passed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, re-allotting 10 cents of land resumed from M/s.Popular Enterprises in favour of the 3rd respondent.
W.P.C.No.13889/2013
2
sheets, straps, flaps etc. under the name and style 'M/s.Priya Rubber Agencies' on certain terms and conditions stated therein. According to the petitioner, he entered into a partnership deed along with the said Muraleedharan Nair as per partnership deed dated 08/05/2008. According to the petitioner, they have started the unit, but in the meantime, a notice was issued complaining non-functioning of the unit for which petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply and it is disregarding the same, Ext.P8 order was issued. It is inter alia contended that respondents 1 and 2 have not issued any notice to Sri.Muraleedharan Nair. It is also contended by the petitioner that the plot is still in the possession of Sri.Muraleedharan Nair, and a small unit of watch manufacturing is functioning there. Petitioner submits that he had invested substantial amount and there is a building in the property and if Ext.P8 is implemented, he will be put to severe loss.
W.P.C.No.13889/2013
3
bank account and the electricity bills dated 21/08/2013 and 21/02/2014.
W.P.C.No.13889/2013
4
W.P.C.No.13889/2013
5
question and if at all he claims to be in occupation, his possession is only that of a trespasser. By Ext.P8, the respondent authority has only allotted the space to another person namely the 3rd respondent. Therefore, when the order of resumption remains unchallenged by Sri.Muraleedharan Nair, petitioner cannot take up that cause and he has no right to challenge Ext.P8 as well. Though the petitioner contends that he is in occupation of Plot No.4, he has no right to remain in occupation as he has no document available with him to indicate that he was allotted the said property at any point of time. The relief sought for to declare that the petitioner and Sri.Muraleedharan Nair are entitled to possess and manage the said property is also not allowable on account of the fact that respondents 1 and 2 have never allowed the petitioner to carry on any activity in the premises along with Sri.Muraleedharan Nair. That apart, the dispute, if any, between two private parties cannot be adjudicated by this court in this proceedings.
W.P.C.No.13889/2013
6
In the result, I do not think that the petitioner has any legal right to challenge Ext.P8 and accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed.
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge an allotment order that resumed land from a third party with whom the petitioner claims to have a partnership.
Whether a person who is not the primary allottee can claim entitlement to possession of an industrial unit based on an alleged partnership.
Whether a private dispute regarding alleged partnership can be adjudicated in writ proceedings challenging a government allotment order.
E.B.Mano
District Industries Centre, represented by its General Manager
The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thiruvananthapuram
M.Vidhu
A.M.Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
