EMMANUVEL SEBASTIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 3 to 6 to allot room/shed to the petitioner in Industrial Estate, Kattappana, Idukki District for running his small scale unit. ii) Mould and grand such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary and that may be prayed for by the petitioner while hearing the W.P.C.

(2.) Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- According to the petitioner, petitioner is a member of Idukki District mini industrial Eestate (Service) Co-operative Society Ltd, Cheruthoni, since 1989. The mini industrial estate functioning at Kattapana, Thodupuzha-Udambannoor, Thodupuzha- Manakkad and Rajakumari are under the control of the 4th respondent society. Petitioner is running a small scale unit for manufacturing 'flavoured tea' and the unit is functioning in the name and style of 'Supriya Tea Company'. The unit is now functioning at Attapallam, Kumily, Idukki District. Petitioner has submitted applications before respondent nos. 3 and 5 requesting to allot room/shed in mini industrial estate, Kattappana for running his unit. However the respondents have taken a stand that rooms/sheds are not presently available in mini industrial estate, Kattappana, which according to the petitioner is not correct. That apart it is submitted that several rooms/sheds are lying vacant in mini industrial estate, Kattappana, for the past six years without doing any business. Those rooms can be allotted to the petitioner and petitioner being a member of the 4th respondent society is eligible to get a room/shed in the mini industrial estate. It is thus seeking appropriate directions to respondent nos. 3 and 5, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed by the 3 rd respondent that is the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Idukki, refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner was a member of the society and allottee of shed under Hire Purchase Scheme of Society Kattappana. Petitioner defaulted payment of hire purchase instalment and therefore the two sheds allotted to him were resumed in 1996 and 1997. It is also submitted that petitioner was removed from membership of the society as per resolution no.8 dated 15.12.2003 of the Managing Committee of the society as he has no shed or land in his name in the society. It is also submitted that, call letters have been served to the applicants including the petitioner in order to prepare a priority list of applicants for the shed allotment and interview was held on 03.02.2018. But the petitioner neither attended the interview nor responded to the letter. Therefore, it is evident that petitioner is not having any intention to start any industry in the property held by Idukki district, mini industrial estate. Therefore the claim of the petitioner for the shed or land is baseless.