K.RAMACHANDRAN Vs. ABOOBAKER HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The additional 10th respondent in W.P.C No.3541 of 2013 is the appellant who challenges judgment dated 16/01/2015, by which the writ petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, has been allowed quashing Ext.P13, an order passed by the 4th respondent cancelling the lease in favour of the petitioners and directing the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO) and its Managing Director to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners after hearing all the affected parties including the appellant.

(2.) The short facts involved in the case indicates that the petitioners got allotment of certain item of property having an extent of 11.67 cents in an industrial park as per letter of allotment dated 10/12/2007, pursuant to which a lease deed was also executed on 30/09/2008 on payment of premium as well as the petitioners agreeing to pay yearly rent. The lease was for a period of ninety years. According to the petitioners, on account of certain factors beyond the control of the petitioners, they were unable to construct the building and to commence operation of the unit within the time stipulated in the lease deed and they have been requesting for time for commencing the industrial activity. Notice dated 28/4/2011 was served on the petitioners calling upon them to take appropriate steps to set up the industrial unit for which a reply had been sent on 12/05/2011 narrating the practical problems faced by them. However SIDCO issued show cause notice dated 16/06/2011 calling upon the petitioners to explain why the land should not be resumed for non -compliance of the terms of agreement. Petitioners submitted a reply stating that they have already started certain works in the land. Again notice dated 16/07/2011 has been served on the petitioners directing them to submit the building plan within 15 days. Petitioners complied with the said request by letter dated 28/07/2011. By another letter dated 10/08/2011, SIDCO sanctioned construction of the buildings based on the plan submitted by the petitioners on certain conditions. Still further, another notice dated 11/07/2012 was served on the petitioners to show cause why the land should not be resumed for having kept the plot idle. It seems that the petitioners did not opt to send any reply which resulted in the resumption order dated 01/09/2012 produced as Ext.P13. Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 30/10/2012, Ext.P14 to the Managing Director of SIDCO for cancelling the resumption order and to permit the petitioners to proceed with the contemplated project. In the meantime, a notice dated 20/10/2012 came to be published for re -allotment of the aforesaid land. At that stage, the writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P13, inter alia contending that the petitioners were not given proper opportunity for hearing, that the materials placed before the officers of SIDCO were not considered by the Managing Director while issuing Ext.P13 and that all necessary steps for construction of the building for setting up the industrial unit is in progress, that notice in terms of clause 19 which provides three months notice for determination of lease have not been served on the petitioners and that no steps were taken to assess the compensation as provided under clause 3 of the lease deed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of SIDCO inter alia stating that as per the terms of the agreement, the allottees will have to commence production within a period of two years from the date of execution of the lease deed. It is stated that petitioners kept the plot idle despite several notices being served to start the unit. It is further stated that sufficient notice had already been given to the allottee to explain why the lease need not be cancelled. The reply given was not satisfactory. However, the building plan was approved and sanctioned on 10/08/2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner, as per the letter dated 14/03/2012 have agreed to start an industry in the alloted plot by 15/04/2012. Exhibit R2(a) is the said letter. Despite such an undertaking, no action has been taken and accordingly notice was issued on 11/07/2012 for which there was no response and therefore resumption order was passed on 01/09/2012 and Ext.P13 order was acknowledged by the petitioners on 21/09/2012. The plot was resumed as per mahazar dated 12/10/2012 and notified for allotment on 20/10/2012. It is further submitted that the land was re - allotted to the additional 10th respondent as per order dated 21/01/2013.