Dismissed

Ashraf A.K v. Byju

Kerala HC14 Aug 2018WA/1354/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ appeal challenging a judgment by the Learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had quashed SIDCO's allotment of an industrial plot to the appellant, holding that the allocation ignored the applicant's pending plea and an earlier Board decision. The apex bench upheld the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; SIDCO directed to take a fresh decision within two months.

Ashraf A.K Vs Byju — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940

¶7

WA.No. 1354 of 2016 IN WP(C). 27397/2015

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 27397/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-06-2016

¶9

APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

ASHRAF A.K

¶11

PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ARAFA NAGAR - 49,rERAVPURAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 011.

¶12

BY ADVS.DR. K.P. SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI. K. SUDHINKUMAR SRI. P. MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI. S. VIBHEESHANAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶14

1 BYJU S/O LATE GANGADHARAN, PALAKKASSERY VEEDU,

¶15

KANJAVELI P.O., THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM- 691 602, REPRSENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BINI G.S., W/O SHINE KUMAR, PALAKASSERY VEEDU, KANJAVELI P.O., KOLLAM.

¶16

2 KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SIDCO), P.B. NO.50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

3 THE HEAD MP MIE/IS. DIVISION

¶18

SIDCO, PB NO.50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶19

4 THE ESTATE MANAGER, SIDCO,

¶20

INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 012.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI. B. MOHANLAL

¶22

SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.A.1354/2016

¶25

¶26

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J &

¶27

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

¶28

W.A. No. 1354 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

¶32

The 4^th respondent in Writ Petition No.27397 of 2015 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.6.2016 of the learned Single Judge. For the sake of convenience we refer to the parties as they appear in the writ petition. The writ petitioner had approached this Court aggrieved by the allotment of an industrial plot in the industrial estate at Umayanalloor. It would appear that the writ petitioner had initially applied for a plot in the said industrial estate on 19.8.2008, and the application was made to the Kerala Small Scale Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO). Although he remitted the application money to support the said application no proceedings in furtherance of the application was taken for almost six years. Thereafter, the writ petitioner is stated to have attempted to revive the earlier application submitted by him through representations made before the SIDCO, when he was informed that the application submitted by him in 2008 could not be proceeded with since the then policy of the Government did not enable an industrial plot to be allotted for glass bottling activity, in respect of which the petitioner had preferred the application in 2008. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a fresh application, this time for commencing manufacturing activity in bakery products. It is the petitioner's case that while he was assured that his application would be

¶33

W.A.1354/2016

¶34

¶35

considered on merit by the authorities concerned, he was informed of the allotment of the industrial plot to the 4^th respondent. It was aggrieved by the said decision of the respondent corporation, to allot the industrial plot to the 4^th respondent, that the petitioner preferred the writ petition impugning Ext.P11 decision dated 31.8.2015 of the SIDCO.

¶36

The learned Single Judge who considered the matter, after taking note of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, found that the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent SIDCO, on 3.6.2015, was without considering the earlier decision of the Board dated 9.4.2015, whereby it was agreed that, if the petitioner did not submit a fresh application, together with supporting document for commencement of a bakery unit on or before 20.5.2015, his application would be rejected. The learned Single Judge thereafter found that the Allotment Committee, that took the decision to allot the plot to the 4^th respondent, had proceeded as if the petitioner had not complied with the conditions stipulated by the decision dated 9.4.2015 referred above, and under those circumstances, based on the decision of the Board of Directors dated 3.6.2015, as also an erroneous impression that this Court had directed an allotment of remaining plot in the industrial estate to the 4^th respondent, proceeded to make the allotment in favour of the 4^th respondent. Finding thereafter, that the allotment in favour of the 4^th respondent was done without considering the claim of the writ petitioner also, the learned Judge quashed Ext.P11 proceedings of the SIDCO and directed the Corporation to consider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner as also the 4^th respondent. The decision for allotting the industrial plot at Umayanalloor was directed to be taken within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶37

W.A.1354/2016

¶38

¶39

Arguing for the appellant, the learned Senior counsel Sri. K.P. Satheeshan would contend that, the learned Single Judge erred in directing a fresh consideration in the matter and interfering with Ext.P11 decision of the respondent Corporation that granted an allotment of an industrial plot to the appellant. It is in particular pointed out that, the writ petitioner was a person who, after submitting an application for allotment of an industrial plot, left the country for Greener Pastures and returned six years later to revive an application that was not pursued by him. It is stated that the writ petitioner was essentially interested in starting a bottling unit, and it was only in 2015 that there was a change of mind to start a unit for manufacturing bakery products. In contrast to the writ petitioner, it is contended that the appellant is a person who has been allotted an industrial plot measuring 7.872 cents of land (2.382 + 5.49) in two different locations at the industrial estate at Umayanalloor, on out right sale basis, for a furniture manufacturing unit. On finding that the extent of 2.382 cents could not be utilised for construction of a factory building, since the plot in question was not suitable for the same, the appellant had approached the Directors of the SIDCO, and consequent to the resolution dated 3.6.2015, the Board of Directors of the SIDCO had decided to allot alternate land to the appellant. It stated that, it is in these circumstances, when the matter came up for decision of the Board of Directors, a decision was taken to allot the land to him on account of his having surrendered the 2.382 cents of land that was earlier allotted to him.

¶40

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, and on hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri. B. Mohanlal, we find that the learned Single Judge primarily relied on the fact that the decision taken by the SIDCO to allot the land in favour of the

¶41

W.A.1354/2016

¶42

¶43

appellant had overlooked the prior decision of the SIDCO, where a commitment had been made to consider the application submitted by the writ petitioner also for allotment of land in connection with the proposed bakery unit, the learned Judge found that the decision taken by the SIDCO was without noticing the prior decision to accommodate the request of the writ petitioner also, and an erroneous assumption by the Allotment Committee that a direction given by this Court to consider the case of the appellant was essentially a direction to allot an industrial plot to the appellant. It was in these circumstances, the learned Single Judge felt that the situation calls for a fresh appraisal of the inter se claims of the writ petitioner and the appellant and ordered accordingly.

¶44

On an analysis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find no reason to take a different view and, hence, we refrain from interfering with the direction of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal. Taking note of the fact that the time granted by the learned Single Judge for taking a fresh decision has expired, we deem it necessary to direct the SIDCO to take a fresh decision in the matter, as directed by the learned Single Judge, within an outer time limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the appellant as also the first respondent.

Ashraf A.K v. Byju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf A.K v. Byju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajithmol N.K. Vs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala

Akhila Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

University of Kerala and Others Vs Shereef and Others

University of Kerala Vs Vinay K

Arul Vs Unnikrishnanp.G.