Dismissed

Saraswathy Devi v. Kerala Sidco

Kerala HC7 Jun 2019WA/1570/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was dismissed as it was devoid of merit. The High Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the SIDCO justified terminating the allotment due to unutilized sheds and unauthorized occupation, noting the appellant failed to attend the personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit.

Saraswathy Devi Vs Kerala Sidco — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019/17TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WA.No.1570 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.33650/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-04-2015

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

SARASWATHY DEVI AGED 62 YEARS W/O. S.VIJAYAN, SAVIYA INDUSTRIES, KANNANLLOOR, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT PADMA SADANAM, 97/VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MAMOOTTIL KADVU, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SRI.SHANE WILFRED MORRIS

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SANTHINAGAR, P.B NO. 50, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP MR.BIJU G., SC, SIDCO SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SRI.SURINE GEORGE IPE, GOVT. PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.NO.1570/2015

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶19

Heard Smt.Anne Susan Varghese, the learned counsel representing the appellant/petitioner. Also heard Sri.Biju G., the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation [hereinafter referred to as “the SIDCO”]. The State of Kerala [respondent No.2] is represented by Sri.Tek Chand, the learned Government Pleader.

¶20

The appellant was allotted shed Nos.1, 3 and 12 in the Mini Industrial Estate, Thrikkovilvattom. When the sheds were found to be unutilized, show cause notice prior to termination was issued to the allottee on 3.7.2014 [Ext.P1]. This was followed by another notice on 2.8.2014 [Ext.P3], where, it was highlighted that during inspection of the allotted sheds on 19.7.2014, it was found that some unauthorised persons have occupied the sheds and doing some activities. When the response to the show cause notice was found to be unsatisfactory, the termination order was issued on 1.11.2014 [Ext.P5], on the twin ground of unauthorised occupation and idle asset. The authority found that the allottee has failed to produce any material to establish that her unit is functioning. Moreover she remained absent during the personal hearing scheduled on 10.10.2014.

¶21

W.A.NO.1570/2015

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

At that stage, on the intervention of the Minister for Industries and Information Technology, the termination order was temporarily stayed but nothing further was heard on the representation preferred by the petitioner. When steps were initiated then by the SIDCO to evict the allottee, she filed the W.P. (C).No.33650/2014 where the petitioner contended that she was denied the opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also claimed that she is operating her industrial unit. The unauthorised occupation was projected to be is on the basis of an incorrect inspection report.

¶24

On the other hand, it was projected by the SIDCO's counsel that the petitioner had failed to produce any document/material to show that the industrial unit is functional. Her failure to avail the hearing opportunity on 10.10.2014 at the SIDCO Head Office to explain the circumstances, if any, on the unauthorised occupation of the sheds by some third parties, was projected as lapses of the allottee.

¶25

The learned Judge, after due consideration of the factual situation, found that the allottee had acted against the contractual terms. The action of the SIDCO was therefore found to be justified. It was also held that adequate opportunity was afforded to the allottee. The Court then went on to observe that the Government has no role in the matter of allotment of land/sheds by the SIDCO, and if the Government had granted some benefit to other persons, the same cannot be the basis for granting undeserved relief to the petitioner who had not only failed to

¶26

W.A.NO.1570/2015

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

operate the industrial shed but had unauthorisedly allowed some strangers, to occupy the allotted sheds, in the Mini Industrial Estate.

¶29

The appellant's counsel reiterates that the allottee was denied a fair opportunity. On this aspect, a contrary averment is seen in paragraph 16 of the Writ Petition where it is admitted that the petitioner herself did not attend the hearing scheduled on 10.10.2014. It is significant that the allottee had kept the allotted sheds in the Industrial Estate idle and then unauthorisedly allowed some third parties to occupy those sheds. It is because of these reasons, the decision to terminate the allotment was taken by the SIDCO authorities.

¶30

We have considered the above and find that there is no material infirmity in the decision taken by the SIDCO. The learned Judge had considered all aspects of the matter, and had rightly decided to dismiss the Writ Petition. The Writ Appeal is therefore found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

prp/7/6/19

W.A.NO.1570/2015

: 5 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.7.2014 OF R1.

¶41

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.7.14 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.8.14 OF R1.

¶43

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.8.14 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶44

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.11.2014 OF R1.

¶45

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.11.14 TO THE STATE INDUSTRIES MINISTER.

¶46

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.11.14 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE INDUSTRIES MINISTER.

¶47

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COPY OF ORDERS ON EVEN DATES BY R1.

¶48

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE STAY ORDERS ON EVEN DAYS BY R2.

¶49

ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶51

ANNEXURE-1: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.7.2013 BY WHICH SHEDS WERE RE-ALLOTTED TO PETITIONER.

¶52

ANNEXURE-II: COPY OF TERMINATION NOTICE DATED 3.7.2014.

¶53

ANNEXURE-III: COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTION TEAM CONSISTING OF HEAD IP & MI DIVISION, VIGILANCE OFFICER AND OFFICER-INCHARGE OF ESTATE DATED 19.7.2014.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶56

W.A.NO.1570/2015 : 6 :

Saraswathy Devi v. Kerala Sidco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswathy Devi v. Kerala Sidco

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

C.P.Abdullakutty Vs a.Shajahan IAS

The Cochin Institute of Science and Technology Ettappally Vs Sachin George

The Cochin Institute of Science and Technology Vs Jisin Jijo

Ajith Kumar, Vs Pradeep T.A.

Dr.Shivanandan Vs Bank of India

Dr.Nizar Kochery,Kocheries Foundation Vs Dr.Prakash Kumar