K.P.JOHNY Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be entrepreneurs who had applied for allotment of land by the District Industries Centre in the Industrial Development Area, Angamaly. According to the petitioners, the allotment of plots in the Development Area, Angamaly is made on the basis of applications made by prospective allottees and after their interview by a competent Board convened by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, the 1st respondent herein. According to them, after interview of prospective allottees were conducted by the aforementioned Board, the 1st petitioner was placed as rank No.1 and that the 2nd petitioner as rank No.4 in the list of allotment published. The copy of the rank list so published by the 1st respondent has been appended to this writ petition and marked as Ext.P1.

(2.) The petitioners submit that an extent of about 3.3 Acres of land had been allotted earlier in the year 1987 to the 4th respondent company namely Bhagavati Beverages Private Ltd., and that some proceedings were initiated against them by the respondents for resumption of the land on certain allegations. It appears that orders for resumption were issued by the District Industries Centre, which was challenged by the 4th respondent before this Court, culminating in Ext.P3 judgment quashing all such proceedings but granting liberty to the General Manager, District Industries Centre to initiate fresh process for resumption, if it was so required after proper notice to the 4th respondent herein. This judgment was challenged by the petitioners herein before a Division Bench of this Court, which led to Ext.P4 judgment, confirming Ext.P3 and clarifying that since resumption proceedings are between the District Industries Centre and the writ petitioner therein, (which is the 4th respondent herein) there was no requirement to hear the petitioners herein but that if such proceedings for resumption reaches finality, meaning that if land is resumed from the 4th respondent herein, the petitioners herein should be allotted such land. It is on the basis of these directions that the petitioners have filed this writ petition. They allege that in spite of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments the 1st respondent has not taken any action for initiating proceedings for resumption against the 4th respondent herein and they have, therefore, prayed that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to resume the land from the 4th respondent in obedience to Ext.P4 judgment and to allot the same to the petitioners.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent Sri.S.Ananthakrishanan and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.