M. Sundararajan v District Industries Centre Palakkad; Palakkad District Mini Industrial Estate Co-operative Society Ltd; Addl. R3 Kerala Financial Corporation (WP(C) Nos. 29456/2017 & 29457/2017)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 29456 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **M.SUNDARARAJAN AGED 72 YEARS AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. R MUTHUSWAMY,5/920,KOLAYAKKODE, KALLEPPULLY P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 005 BY ADV SRI.S.MURALI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, CIVIL STATOIN PALAKKAD 678 001REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER** - **2 THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.S IND(P) MIE-50 CIVIL STATION, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,PALAKKAD 670 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR** - **ADDL.R3 THE CHIEF MANAGER KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PALAKKAD, PIN678001.** **ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.12.2017 IN IA 18154/17.** **R2 BY SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN R3 BY SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, KFC R1 BY SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).29457/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 29457 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **S.ELANGO AGED 45 YEARS S/O. M. SUNDARARAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/920, KOLAYAKKODE, KALLEPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 005.** **BY ADV SRI.S.MURALI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.** - **2 THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.S IND P MIE-50 CIVIL STATION, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD - 670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **R1 BY ADV.MABLE C.KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).29456/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **3** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------W.P.(C).Nos.29456 & 29457 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of July, 2021** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected and therefore I am disposing these two writ petitions by a common judgment. I am taking W.P.(C).No.29456 of 2017 as the main case. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a qualified Mechanical Engineer worked in Hindustan Aeronautics. He started small scale industrial units with the name Bharath Engineering Industrial Company, Bharath Machine Tools etc manufacturing precision tools etc in industrial sheds bearing Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the industrial land in Mini Industrial Estate, Koduvayur. The land was initially allotted under hire purchase agreement in the year 1994 by the respondents. According to the petitioner, they were the main suppliers of their products to reputed companies like ITI, Keltron, Pouyut Communications Ltd etc. According to the petitioner, the entire amount due to the respondents towards hire purchase value of all the sheds and land was paid off by him in full before 1998, as evident by Exts.P2 and P3 non-liability **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **4** certificates issued by the respondents. After paying the entire amount, out of 5 sheds, the title and ownership in respect of shed No.5 having 600 sq.ft. with industrial land having 1.87 cents and shed No.7 having 600 sq.ft. with industrial land measuring 1.87 cents forming part of 1 Acre of land in Mini Industrial Estate were assigned by the respondents in favour of the petitioner in 1998 by executing Ext.P1 sale deed and Sale Deed No.1240/1998 dated 31.07.1998 of Koduvayur SRO. The sale deed in respect of the remaining sheds are yet to be executed. But, according to the petitioner, the entire purchase value of all sheds with the land have been paid fully by the petitioner and thereby the petitioner obtained absolute ownership in the sheds with the land. According to the petitioner, since the sheds with industrial land have been assigned to the petitioner, respondents lost their ownership and title over the same. 3. The petitioner submits that the industry was running smoothly in the beginning and in the year 2009 and 2011, the petitioner had a massive heart attack and he had undergone coronary angioplasty. Moreover, the petitioner submits that due to liberalization policy of Central **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **5** Government, the industry has a set back and it was running in loss. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner availed loan from KFC by mortgaging shed No.5 with the land which became NPA. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that on 10.08.2017, the petitioner was served with Exts.P5 to P9 notices from the 2[nd] respondent, stating that the petitioner had kept the industrial sheds idle for long time and directed to show cause why the possession of the above industrial sheds owned by the petitioner ought not been taken back. The petitioner submitted that, he submitted Exts.P10 and P11 reply stating that he had not kept the sheds idle and had taken earnest efforts to resume operations for which he has produced documents also before the 2[nd] respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering the contentions of the petitioner, Exts.P12 to P16 orders are passed by the 2[nd] respondent taking possession of all the above industrial sheds belonging to the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that Exts.P12 to P16 orders were passed by the 2[nd] respondent without considering the contentions of the petitioner in Exts.P10 and P11 reply. The counsel for the **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **6** petitioner submitted that Exts.P12 to P16 orders are stereo type orders without any reasoning and that itself shows that these orders are passed without application of mind and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity of hearing, after setting aside Exts.P12 to P16 orders passed by the 2[nd] respondent. Similar contention is raised in W.P. (C).No.29457 of 2017 also. 5. The counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that a detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 2[nd] respondent, producing documents to show that the impugned orders in the writ petition are passed after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The counsel takes me through relevant rules which deals about the allotment of sheds and also the rules relating to the hire purchase agreement that is executed in favour of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that altogether ten sheds are in occupation by the petitioner, his wife and two children. Several others are waiting for getting the sheds from the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent issued the impugned orders because the sheds were not used by the petitioner for industrial purpose. The counsel submitted that there is no **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **7** dispute as far as shed Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 is concerned. The counsel submitted that as far as W.P.(C).No.29456 of 2017 is concerned, the petitioner challenged the orders passed as far as shed Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The counsel submitted that as far as the shed No.6 is concerned, it is actually allotted to the son of the petitioner, who is not arrayed as a party. Therefore the counsel submitted that the petitioner has no authority to challenge the same. The counsel submitted that as far as W.P. (C).No.29457 of 2017 is concerned, Ext.P7 is the order related to shed No.10. The counsel for the 2[nd] respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Indu Kakkar v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and** **Another [1999 (2) SCC 37]** . The counsel also relied on the judgment dated 02.11.2016 in W.P.(C).No.37992 of 2003 of this Court. According to the counsel, the impugned orders in the writ petition are passed as per the rules and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that, in such circumstances, this Court may not interfere with these orders. Several others are waiting for getting sheds in the industrial estate. This writ petition is pending from 2017 onwards and there is a status quo order also. Because of that, **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** the 2[nd] respondent is not in a position to allot the sheds to others. 6. I perused the impugned orders in these two writ petitions. The main grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that an opportunity of hearing is not given to them before passing these impugned orders. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. I do not want set aside the impugned orders also. When the petitioners raise a contention that their grievance is not properly considered by the 2[nd] respondent, I think an opportunity can be given to the petitioners for submitting their grievance against the impugned orders in this case. There can be a time limit for submitting their objections and there can be a time limit for disposing those representations by the 2[nd] respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, without going to the merit of the case, I think these writ petitions can be disposed in the following manner: 1. The petitioners are at liberty to file a representation raising their objections against the impugned orders in these writ petitions within two weeks from the date of receipt of a **9** ## **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** copy of this judgment. 2. If such a representation is received by the 2[nd] respondent, the same will be considered by the 2[nd] respondent, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation. 3. The interim order will continue till the disposal of the representations by the 2[nd] respondent, on condition that the petitioners will not alienate the sheds. With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. JV Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29456/2017** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURE**|**PETITIONER ANNEXURE**| |---|---| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO 1239/1998**| ||**DATED 31-07-1998 OF KODUVAYUR SUB**| ||**REGISTRAR OFFICE EXECUTED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY**| ||**CERTIFICATE DATED 08-07-1997 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**| ||**ION RESPECT OF OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF**| ||**SHED NOS. 5,7,8 AND 9**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY**| ||**CERTIFICATE DATED 08-07-1997 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S**| ||**SON S. AHILAN IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.6**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY**| ||**DATED 11-08-2011 ISSUED FROM LAKSHMI**| ||**HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD IN THE NAME OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-08-**| ||**2017 IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.5 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02-08-**| ||**2017 IN RESPECT OF SHED NOS. 7 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE**| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-08-**| ||**2017 IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.8 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-08-**| ||**2017 IN RESPECT OF SHED NO 9 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-08-**| ||**2017 IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.6 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE**| ||**EPTITIONER'S SON AHILAN SERVED ON THE**| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16-08-**| ||**2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REPLY TO THE**| ||**NOTICE OF RESUMPTION ISSUED IN RESPECT**| ||**OF SHED NOS. 5,6 AND 7**| **11** ## **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16-082017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESUMPTION NOTICE ISSUED IN RESPECT OF SHED NOS 8 AND 9 ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 1708-2017 PLACING ORDER FOR SUPPLY OF POWDER COATED'V' BRACKETS ISSUED BY SKTE ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RESUMPTION ORDER DATED 26-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.5** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RESUMPTION ORDER DATED 26-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE NAME THE PETITIONER'S SON AHILAN IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.6** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RESUMPTION ORDER DATED 26-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.7** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RESUMPTION ORDER DATED 26-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONEER IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.8** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE RESUMPTION ORDER DATED 26-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.9** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES FOR ALLOTMENTS OF SHEDS ON HIRE PURCHASE BASIS IN DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.10.2015 LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED FROM ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KODUVAYUR** **12** ## **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE APPLICANT RCEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THIS RESPONDENT ON 06.10.2017 EXHIBIT R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 12.01.2017 EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 21.05.2002 ISSUED BY THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.** **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **13** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29457/2017** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURE**|**PETITIONER ANNEXURE**| |---|---| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1238 DATED**| ||**31.07.1998 OF KODUVAYUR SUB REGISTRAR**| ||**OFFICE EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY**| ||**CERTIFICATE DATED 08.07.1997 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY**| ||**17.10.2016 ISSUED BY DR. ANOOP**| ||**GOPINATH, MD, DNB (CARDIO), MEDITRINA**| ||**WELCARE HEART CENTRE, PALAKKAD TO THE**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED**| ||**03.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF EMAIL LETTER DATED**| ||**17.08.2017 ALONG WITH SPECIFICATION OF**| ||**THE COMPONENTS GOODS TO BE SUPPLIED TO**| ||**THEM ISSUED BY M/S ASSOCIATED AUTO TEX**| ||**ANCILLARIES PRIVATE LIMITED,**| ||**COIMBATORE TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED**| ||**16.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO**| ||**THE NOTICE OF RESUMPTION ISSUED IN**| ||**RESPECT OF SHED NO. 10.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RESUMPTION ORDER**| ||**DATED 26.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER DATED**| ||**31.08.2017 ISSUED BY M/S.ASSOCIATED**| ||**AUTO TEX ANCILLARIES PRIVATE LIMITED**| ||**TO M/S. GIRISH TOOLS FOR SUPPLYING**| ||**GOODS BY THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT REPORT DATED**| ||**21.09.2017 PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**21.09.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT REQUESTING TO**| **14** ## **W.P.(C).No.29456 & 29457 of 2017** **ISSUE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.10 BELONGED TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 10.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.**