Disposed

M/S Wellstick Polymers v. Director of Industries & Commerce

Kerala HC4 Dec 2023WP(C)/40482/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court set aside recommended action letters issued by the cooperative society against petitioners who alleged entitlement to club their plots based on past precedents. The court directed the industrial authority to dispose of the clubbing application within two months and deferred further action on the recommended letters pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to take up Ext.P19 and dispose of it within two months; all further action pursuant to Exts.P14 and P15 deferred until then.

M/S Wellstick Polymers Vs Director of Industries & Commerce — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 40482 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M/S WELLSTICK POLYMERS, 128/2, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH REG.NO. 2155/2023, CHAMMANNUR, ANGAMALY , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SURESH P.K, PIN - 683573

¶8

2 SURESH P.K., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PEEDAMPURAM HOUSE, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683547

¶9

3 RATHEESH M.R., AGED 31 YEARS S/O. RAVI, 14/284, MULLAPPILLITHADAM HOUSE, KAIPPOORA KARA, MARAMPILLY P.O., VAZHAKKULAM, PIN - 683105

¶10

4 AJITHA JAYAN, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. JAYAN, PALLIMALI HOUSE, KOTTAPPADI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686692

¶11

DINESH R.SHENOY P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY SILESH S. PRABHU JOMOL PIUS

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE O/O. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶14

2 GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682030

¶15

3 THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD. S.IND(E)64

¶16

MARKET ROAD, ALUVA ,REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 683101

¶17

SRI SUNIL K KURIAKOSE-GP

¶18

¶19

WP(C) NO. 40482 OF 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO. 40482 OF 2023

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners impugn Exts.P14 and P15 issued by the third respondent, whereby, certain action has been recommended against them, for having violated the terms of the grant of plots to them. They say that the contents of Exts.P14 and P15 are not accurate because, they are entitled to club their plots and conduct a common enterprise, and that this is manifest from Exts.P17 and P18. They say that they have, therefore, preferred Ext.P19 application before the first respondent, but that the said Authority is unwilling to consider the same, though all further action pursuant to Exts.P14 and P15 is taken forward.

¶25

Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the first respondent in not considering Ext.P19 is illegal and unlawful, particularly when his clients have been able to point out therein that Exts.P17 and P18 establish a convention and practice in the past, through which, requests like those made by his clients have always been acceded to. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the first respondent be directed to take up Ext.P19 and dispose it of; until which time, all action pursuant

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO. 40482 OF 2023

¶28

to Exts.P14 and P15 be ordered to be deferred.

¶29

Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that, if the petitioners only require Ext.P19 to be taken up and disposed of by the first respondent, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; however, praying that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations and leave it to the said Authority to take an apposite decision, as per law. He added that he is making the afore submissions because, Ext.P19 may not be maintainable, particularly when Exts.P14 and P15 have been issued by the third respondent; and prayed that this may also be allowed to be considered by the first respondent, when the afore exercise is completed.

¶30

In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the rival contentions, including the maintainability of Ext.P19 before the first respondent, I direct the said respondent to take it up and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, adverting to Exts.P17 and P18 and to any other material that they may place before it; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is

¶31

WP(C) NO. 40482 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Until such time as the afore is done and the resultant order communicated to the petitioners, all further action pursuant to Exts.P14 and P15 will stand deferred.

¶35

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

stu

¶38

WP(C) NO. 40482 OF 2023

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40482/2023

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit	P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REGISTRATION OF FIRMS DATED 12/6/2023 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF FIRMS.
Exhibit	P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 8/5/2023 OF THE FIRST PETITIONER EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS 2 TO 4.
Exhibit	P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 21/6/2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/7/2022 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH PROPOSED FACTORY DRAWING.
Exhibit	P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25/7/2022 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED FACTORY BUILDING PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONERS TOGETHER IN THE 3 PLOTS OF LAND ALLOTTED TO THEM.
Exhibit	P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.10/2021 DATED 24/4/2023 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED ON 10/5/2023 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.7/2021 DATED 18/5/2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF HEARING NOTICE NO.10/2021 DATED 27/7/2023 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶43

WP(C) NO. 40482 OF 2023

¶44

¶45

Exhibit P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 7/8/2023. Exhibit P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 DATED 9/8/2023. Exhibit P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 26/8/2023.

¶46

Exhibit P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.10/2021 DATED 13/9/2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶47

Exhibit P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.77/2023 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/11/2023 ISSUED TO PETITIONERS 2 TO 4.

¶48

Exhibit P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 7/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶49

Exhibit P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PERMISSION GRANTED FOR CLUBBING OF MORE THAN ONE PLOT OF LAND ALLOTTED THEREIN FOR THE PURPOSE OPERATION OF ONE SINGLE UNIT OF M/S. ROYAL WOOD INDUSTRIES IN THE ARAKKAPPADY INDUSTRIAL UNIT COMING UNDER THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD. S.IND(E)64, ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3/2/2015, WITH ALLIED PAPERS.

¶50

Exhibit P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9/12/2016 IN FAVOUR OF M/S. PENTAGON POLYMERS IN THE KANJOOR MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE.

¶51

Exhibit P19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION/PETITION DATED 9/10/2023 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

M/S Wellstick Polymers v. Director of Industries & Commerce

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Wellstick Polymers v. Director of Industries & Commerce

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

Daya, Vs the Branch Manager

M/S. Deens Group Vs State of Kerala

Varkey.a.P.@Varkey Philipose, Vs State of Kerala

Kannan A.R Vs the Head of the Grievance Cell

Sharif. A.M Vs the Kerala Institution of Local Administration ( Kila)

G.v.Davis Vs the Superintending Engineer