Allowed

M/S.Kochiplast Solutions Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jan 2019WP(C)/1630/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an impugned order directing transfer of an industrial plot on lease instead of hire purchase, this Court quashed the order. Relying on prior judgments and Government clarifications, it held that existing allotments are governed by old norms permitting hire purchase transfers.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings were set aside to the extent they directed lease basis transfer. The 3rd Respondent was directed to pass revised orders granting the transfer based on hire purchase basis with

M/S.Kochiplast Solutions Private Limited Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1630 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S.KOCHIPLAST SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, AJITHKUMAR, S/O. V.GOPI, AGED 53,REGISTERED OFFICE ROOM. NO.AMC XI, 424, LOURDE CENTRE ANNEXE,ALUVA-1

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

3 THE GERNERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY, SRI.T.S.SHYAMPRASANTH, GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

W.P.(C)No. 1630 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶24

" i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext-P8 and quash the same as illegal.

¶25

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to revise Ext-P8 order in the light of Exts-P11, P12 orders as well as Circular No.ID 5/1127/13, dated 4.5.2018 and also ExtsP13 and P14 Judgments of this Hon'ble Court. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext-P15 request and to pass orders thereon in the light of ExtsP13, P14 judgments and also in the light of ExtsP11 and P12 order and teh Circular No.ID 5/1127/2013 dated 4/5/2018."

¶26

2. Heard Sri. C.S. Manilal, the learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the petitioner and Sri. K.V. Sohan, the learned State Attorney instructed by Sri. T.S. Shyam Prasanth, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

The industrial plot in the subject property was originally alloted to one Sri. Jose Kurian by way of transfer of industrial plot on hire purchase basis as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 13.11.1995 of

¶29

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019

¶30

¶31

the 3^rd respondent General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam and the said allotment was granted on the basis of then prevailing norms as per Ext.P9 G.O.(MS)No.169/ID dated 5/4/1969 and the Rules appended thereto etc. It is stated that the allotment of the industrial land was transferred on several occasions to different persons on hire purchase basis in terms of the provisions contained in the prevalent Rules. The petitioner has now purchased it from the last person and had submitted application for permission of respondents 2 and 3 as per the Rules for allotment of the said industrial plot on hire purchase basis. However, the 3^rd respondent has issued the impugned Ext.P8 proceedings dated 26.12.2017, whereby though the transfer of industrial plot has been made in favour of the petitioner, it has been ordered to be granted on lease basis as per the new norms and not by way of hire purchase as per the norms, which were prevalent at the time of original allotment of the industrial plot.

¶32

In this context, it is relevant to bear in mind that the Government had issued Ext.P10 G.O.(MS)No.60/2013 dated 10.6.2013, wherein it was ordered that allotment of industrial plot will be made only on lease basis etc. However, later the competent authority State Government had issued Ext.P11 G.O.

¶33

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019

¶34

¶35

(MS)No.110/2013/ID dated 13/9/2013 ordering and clarifying that the norms that granting allotment will be made only on the basis of lease will be applicable only for fresh allotments made on or after the issuance of Ext.P10 G.O.(MS) No.60/2013 dated 10.6.2013 and that allotments made as per the previous norms could be regulated by such previous norms and in such cases where the original grant was made on the basis of hire purchase basis, then the transfer of the allotment could also be permitted on the basis of hire purchase basis etc. It appears that there was some confusions among officials concerned in enforcing the new norms as per Ext.P10 and hence the Government has again reiterated the order in Ext.P11 by issuing Ext.P12 Government letter dated 2.12.2013 clarifying that new norms for allotments on lease basis will be applicable only for fresh allotments made on or after the issuance of Ext.P10 G.O.(MS) No.60/2013 dated 10.6.2013 and that the pre-existing allotments made on the basis of such pre-existing norms, which permitted the allotment on hire purchase basis, would be applicable only in the case of such old allotments.

¶36

The matter in issue is no longer res integra and is fully covered against the respondents as per the dictum laid down by this Court in Ext.P13 judgment dated 6.2.2018 in W.P.(C)No.2736/2018

¶37

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019

¶38

¶39

and various other judgements which have been issued by this Court following the ratio in Ext.P13 judgment as in Ext.P14 judgment dated 6.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.39673/2018, etc. This Court in Ext.P13 judgment dated 6.2.2018 in W.P.(C)No.2736/2018 held that in view of the clarification as per Exts.P11 and P12 herein, the allotments on lease basis as ordered in Ext.P10 G.O.(MS) No.60/2013 dated 10.6.2013 will be application for fresh allotments on or after the issuance of Ext.P10 G.O. Dated 10.6.2013 and that the allotments made previously thereto, which permitted the allotments on the basis of lease basis would be regulated by then prevalent norms etc. Accordingly, this Court in Ext.P13 judgment had quashed the similar order as in the present impugned order as per Ext.P8 herein and had directed the respondents to grant the transfer of allotment in favour of the petitioner therein on the basis of hire purchase as per the previous norms. It is not in dispute that the directions and orders issued by this Court in Ext.P13 judgment dated dated 6.2.2018 in W.P.(C)No.2736/2018 have already been complied with by the respondents by the issuance of proceedings dated 25.4.2018 of the respondent Director of Industries and Commerce, which is referred to as Ext.p12 in Ext.P14 judgment. In the same manner, this Court has also followed the dictum laid down in Ext.P13 judgment in

¶40

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019

¶41

¶42

various of the subsequent judgments as in Ext.P14 judgment dated 6.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.39673/2018 etc. Accordingly, it is only to be held that the impugned order is illegal and ultra vires and would go against the specific orders and directions in Exts.P-11 & P-12. So the impugned order at Ext.P8 issued by the 3^rd respondent General Manager is illegal and ultra vires and would go against the spirit and substance of the orders of the Government as per Exts.P11 and P12 etc.

¶43

Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P8 proceedings dated 26.12.2017 issued by the 3^rd respondent will stand set aside to the extent it directs that the transfer of allotment in favour of the petitioner will be on lease basis and not on hire purchase basis. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent will immediately pass revised orders in accordance with the specific directions of the Government in Exts.P11 G.O.(MS)No.110/2013/ID dated 13.9.2013 and Ext.P12 Government letter dated 2.12.2013 etc. There is no dispute that the transfer of allotment is to be made in favour of the petitioner and the only dispute is as to whether such transfer of allotment should be on the basis of hire purchase or leas basis. In view of Exts.P11 and P12, it is ordered that the 3^rd respondent is bound to ensure that the transfer of allotment in favour of the petitioner will be on hire purchase basis and not on lease basis.

¶44

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019

¶45

¶46

Revised orders in this regard should be duly passed by the 3^rd respondent General Manager, without much delay preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶47

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

¶48

sd/-

¶49

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.1995
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.1996
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.7.2008
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DTD 13.9.2010 EXECURED IN FAVOUR OF REKHA
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR TRANSFER DTD 12.6.2017 SUBMITTED OT THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING BY DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) 169/D DATED 5/4/1969 AND THE RULES APPENDED THERETO
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT G.O(MS) 60/2013 ID DATED 10/6/2013
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.110/2013/ID,DATED 13/9/2013
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF HE LETTER DATED 2.12.2013 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.2.2018 IN W.P(C) NO.2736/2018
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2018 IN W.P(C) NO.39673/2018
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 9.8.2018
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2018. TRUE COPY

¶56

W.P.(C)No.1630/2019 9

M/S.Kochiplast Solutions Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kochiplast Solutions Private Limited 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Purushan, Vs the District Collector

Namitha D., Vs Radhika P.R.

Abdul Jaleel Vs Special Thahsildar

Dioncey Augustine Vs State of Kerala

Baby D.K., Vs the District Collector

Annamma Abraham, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer