Remanded

M/S. Five Star Agro Foods Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2018WP(C)/39673/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order applying new lease norms to their transfer applications for industrial plots originally allotted under hire purchase basis. The Court relied on prior judgments and clarified that the new norms apply only to fresh allotments post-notification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to respondents to consider transfer of industrial plot based on pre-existing hire purchase norms.

M/S. Five Star Agro Foods Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 39673 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S. FIVE STAR AGRO FOODS PRIVATE LTD. DEVELOPMENT PLOT,POOVANTHURUTH,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN686012,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.MR.ABDUL AZEEZ.T.KUNJU.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

3 THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTYAM - 686 002.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2018, ALONG WITH WPC NO.39675/18 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶20

THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶21

WP(C).No. 39675 of 2018

¶22

PETITIONER/S:

¶23

1 K.M. JACOB AGED 55 YEARS KUDILIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 602

¶24

2 CHIKKU CHACKO, AGED 1 YEARS

¶25

KOORKKAKALAYIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 531

¶26

3 KOCHUMON JACOB, AGED 1 YEARS MOOZHIPPARA HOUSE, KUZHIMATTOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 533

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE

¶28

RESPONDENT/S:

¶29

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶30

2 THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶31

3 THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶32

OTHER PRESENT:

¶33

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2018, ALONG WITH WPC NO.39673/2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶36

==================

¶37

W.P.(C).Nos.39673 & 39675 of 2018

¶38

==================

¶39

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2018

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The prayers in W.P.(C).No. 39673/2018 are as follows:

¶42

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P8 and quash the same.

¶43

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to finalise Exhibit-P3 and ExhibitP4 applications submitted by the petitioners based on the Rules applicable to Hire Purchase basis as evidenced by Exhibit-P6 and Exhibit-P7 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court

¶44

iii) To declare that the respondents are not entitled amount under the head difference in land value for effecting the transfer as per Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4 as the petitioner No.1 had obtained the land allotted on outright purchase as evidenced by Exhibit-P1

¶45

And

¶46

iv) Such other writ, orders and interim orders deem fit to grant in the nature and circumstances of the case .”

¶47

The prayers in W.P.(C).No. 39675/2018 are as follows:

¶48

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P8 and quash the same.

¶49

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to finalise Exhibit-P3 and ExhibitP4 applications based on Hire Purchase basis as evidenced by ExhibitsP6 and P7 forthwith

¶50

iii) To declare that the amount under the head land value difference claimed by the respondents evidenced by Exhibits-P8, P13, Exhibit-P14 etc. is illegal;

¶51

And

¶52

iv) Such other writ, orders and interim orders deem sft to grant in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

¶53

Heard Sri.K.M.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for

¶54

the petitioners in these cases and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned

¶55

Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶56

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18

¶57

: 4 :-

¶58

The facts in both these cases are broadly similar as regards the main issue is concerned. It is seen in the pleadings in W.P.(C).No. 39673/2018, that the 1^st petitioner therein has established an industrial unit on the development plot under the 3^rd respondent District Industries Centre, Kottayam. The land upon which the unit has been established was allotted in the year 1990 by the respondents on hire purchase basis as per the rules framed by the Government for allotment of land in development plots. The said original rules envisage right to purchase industrial plot on full payment fixed and outright purchase with right to transfer with the prior approval of the authorities concerned. The unit was established in a land having an extent of 30 cents and it was purchased on outright purchase basis as evidenced by Ext.P-1 proceedings and Ext.P-2 produced in that W.P.(C). Due to financial difficulties the 1^st petitioner found it difficult to run the unit in a profitable manner and agreement has been reached with the 2^nd petitioner to transfer the said industrial plot to the 2^nd petitioner to enable the latter to run the industrial unit and the said transfer of the land on hire purchase basis requires approval of the respondents, more particularly the 3^rd respondent. In that regard Exts.P-3 and P-4 are the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking approval of the respondents for transfer of the industrial plot by the 1^st petitioner to the 2^nd petitioner. In the meanwhile, the Government had altered the norms by issuing Ext.P-5 G.O.(Ms).No. 60/2013/ID dated 10.6.2013,

¶59

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18 - : 5 :-

¶60

wherein the basis of allotment of such lands was changed as on lease basis instead of the original norm of transfer on hire purchase basis. However, immediately thereafter the State Government has clarified and ordered as per Ext.P-6 G.O.(Ms).No. 110/2013/ID dated 13.9.2013 wherein it was ordered that the allotment of land on lease basis as per Ext.P-5 G.O.(Ms). dated 10.6.2013 will apply only to future cases and not to cases in which land has already been allotted or assigned on hire purchase basis. It was also again reiterated in Ext.P-7 Government letter dated 2.12.2013 that the norms in Ext.P-5 G.O.(Ms). dated 10.6.2013 for allotment of land on lease basis will be applicable only for allotments made on or after the date of issuance of Ext.P-5 G.O.(Ms). dated 10.6.2013 which means that it applies only to cases where fresh allotment was made to plots or to any lands or plots resumed or patta cancelled, which comes to the possession of the District Industries Centre and that in all other cases, the application for transfer, allotment of land, etc. shall be be dealt with as per the preexisting norms which were in vogue prior to Ext.P-5 G.O.(Ms) dated 10.6.2013, etc. Hence the impact of Exts.P-5 to P-7 is that the new norms as per Ext.P-5 for allotment or transfer of industrial plots on lease basis will apply only for fresh allotments made on or after 10.6.2013 and will not apply to cases of transfer where the original allotments were made on the basis of pre-existing norms, governing hire purchase transfers. However, the 2^nd respondent Director of Industries & Commerce has taken the view

¶61

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18

¶62

: 6 :-

¶63

in the impugned Ext.P-8 order that the applications of the petitioners for transfer of the industrial plot will be regulated by the new norms in Ext.P-5 G.O.(Ms). dated 10.6.2013 and the transfer can only be on the basis of lease basis and not on the basis of the pre-existing norms of hire purchase basis.

¶64

In W.P.(C).No. 39675/2018, the industrial plot which belongs to the 1^st petitioner therein was established on the land allotted by the respondents in the development plot under the abovesaid earlier rules. The original allotment to the 1^st petitioner therein was in the year 2003. Now the 1^st petitioner intends to transfer the industrial plot allotted to him to 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners who also intend to run the industrial plot for running an industrial unit. Applications as per Exts P-3 and P-4 have been submitted by the petitioners before the respondents seeking transfer of the said industrial unit so as to effectuate transfer on hire purchase basis as per the pre-existing norms. The said request has now been objected by the 2^nd respondent Director of Industries & Commerce, as per the impugned Ext.P-8 proceedings wherein also a similar view has been taken that the case of the petitioners will be regulated by the new norms in Ext.P-5 G.O.(Ms). dated 10.3.2016 in respect of transfer only on lease basis and not on the basis of the original norms of hire

¶65

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18 - : 7 :-

¶66

purchase basis. The contentions that are raised in W.P.(C).No. 39673/2018 on the basis of the new norms and clarifications which have been produced as Exts.P5 to P-7 are also urged in the latter W.P. (C). as well.

¶67

The matter in issue is no longer res intergra and is fully covered in favour of the petitioners as per the various judgments rendered by this Court as in the judgment dated 6.2.2018 in W.P. (C).No. 2736/2018, dated 4.12.2018 in W.P.(C).No.39207/2018, and dated 5.12.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 39406/2018, wherein it had been held that in view of the clarifications made by none other than the 1^st respondent State Government as per Exts.P6 and P-7, the new norms as per Ext.P-5 G.O. dated 10.6.2013 can be pressed into service only on or after 10.6.2013 so as to effectuate it on the basis of lease basis and will not cover the allotments or transfers made prior to 10.6.2013 and in such cases, transfers will be regulated on the basis of the preexisting norms of hire purchase, etc. Consequent to the judgment dated 6.2.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 2736/2018, the petitioners therein have been given the benefit of the said judgment as per Ext.P-12 produced in both these cases. In the light of these aspects and following the abovesaid judgments, it is ordered that the impugned

¶68

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18

¶69

: 8 :-

¶70

Ext.P-8 proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent Director will stand set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the competent authority among respondents 2 and 3, who will consider the case of the petitioners herein for transfer of the industrial plot on the basis of pre-existng norms of hire purchase basis and not on the basis of the new norms in Ext.P-5 G.O. dated 10.6.2013 on lease basis and pass necessary orders thereon.

¶71

The petitioners in these cases have also raised an ancillary grievance. In W.P.(C).No.39673/2018 the 1^st petitioner would submit that he has paid the amount for the outright purchase of the industrial plot in the year 2013 as evident from Ext.P-1 in W.P.(C).No. 39673/2018. Hence the insistence by respondents 2 and 3 that the parties therein should make payment under the land value difference for processing the applications is urged to be illegal and arbitrary. So also, the petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 39675/2018 have a case that they had not initially paid the entire amounts on outright basis, but they have subsequently cleared the entire amounts by way of instalments as evidenced by Ext.P-2 produced in that W.P.(C). and therefore the insistence by the respondents that the petitioners therein should pay the difference in the land value, etc. is illegal and improper, etc. It is

¶72

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18 - : 9 :-

¶73

directed that it is for the petitioners to submit separate representations before the competent authority among respondents 2 and 3 for ventilating their grievances in respect of the issue relating to differential value of the land. The said grievance of the petitioners should also be considered by respondents 2 and 3 along with the main issue, and after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 will issue orders in the matter in the light of the abovesaid directions, without much delay, within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶74

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petitions (Civil) stand finally disposed of.

¶75

sdk+

¶76

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶77

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18

¶78

: 10 :-

¶79

WPC 39675/2018

¶80

APPENDIX

¶81

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶82

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24-02-2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT DATED 30-09- 2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 3 ON 30-10-2014.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3 ON 30-10-2014.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 60/2013/ID DATED 10-06-2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 110/2013/ID DATED 13-09- 2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2-12-2013 ISSUED BY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17-02-2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26-02-2018 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 2

¶83

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3-5-2018 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS

¶84

EXHIBIT	P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NO. 2736 OF 2018	JUDGMENT DATED 6-2-2018 IN W.P(C)
EXHIBIT	P12 TRUE COPY OF TH RESPONDENT NO. 2	E PROCEEDINGS DATED 25-04-2018 OF
EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE PETITIONER	CHELAN DATED 29-10-2014 IN THE NAME
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE PETITIONER	CHELAN DATED 29-10-2014 IN THE NAME NO. 1

¶85

W.P.(C).39673/18 & 39675/18

¶86

: 11 :-

¶87

WPC 39673/18

¶88

APPENDIX

¶89

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶90

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATE 18.10.2003 OF RESPONDENTS NO.3.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 22.10.2003 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NO.2
EXHIBIT P4 A	TRUE COPY OF AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 GRANTED BY KERALA STATE YOUTH WELFARE BOARD.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.60/2013/ID DATED 10.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.110/2013/ID DATED 13.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.12.2013 ISSUED BY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.2.2018 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NO.2
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.2.2018 IN W.P. (c)NO.2736 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.4.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN DATED 11.11.2016 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER NO.1
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN DATED 11.11.2016 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER N0.1.

M/S. Five Star Agro Foods Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Five Star Agro Foods Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P. Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Baby Sarojam Vs the State of Kerala

Nandanan Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Ashraf, Vs Registrar of Societies

Sajitha, Vs the Land Tribunal

Sherborne Builders and Properties Private Limited Vs State of Kerala