Dr. P.R. Jayakrishnan vs. The General Manager, District Industries Centre
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNE AY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19148 OF 2018 PETITIONER: DR. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.K.M.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,PROPRIETOR, M/S.BIOVEDICS, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (NIDA),KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD – 678621 RESIDING AT DEVIKRIPA, HOUSE NO.320, CHANDRANAGAR EXTENSION P.O., PALAKKAD-678007. BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SMT.NIDHI RAVINDRAN SRI.D.THILAKAN SRI.P.R.VIBHU SMT.VIDYA G NAIR SRI.M.YOHANNAN SMT.MEENU THAMPI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,PALAKKAD - 678001. 2 THE ESTATE OFFICER SUB DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE,PALAKKAD-678001. BY SR GP – ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 19148/18 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner says that he is a qualified Ayurvedic Doctor and an entrepreneur, engaged in the business of manufacturing ayurvedic medicines under a valid licence. He has produced Ext.P1 in substantiation and says that, for the purpose of his business, he had applied for and had been granted allotment of certain extents of land in the Industrial Area at Palakkad; and that he commenced activities thereon, after availing loan facilities from the State Bank of India.
The petitioner says that, he had expended large amounts of money for installation of machinery and towards working capital and that even though his business - in the name of 'Biovedics'
-
has been continuing uninterruptedly, he was issued with various proceedings by the respondents, asking to show
WPC 19148/18 3 cause why the property be not resumed, on the allegation that he had stopped activities in the property. He says that these allegations made against him are factually incorrect, but that on account of severe indisposition, he was not able to personally appear before them or to offer explanation and concedes that notices for such purpose had been received by him.
The petitioner says that, in such circumstances, even though he had sent a detailed report explaining that he had been continuing his business, Ext.P15 order had been issued by the 1st respondent-General Manager, resuming the property in question, holding that he had kept the same idle after the year 2011. He contends that the allegations and findings in Ext.P15 are wholly incorrect; and therefore, prays that the same be set aside and the respondents be directed to allow him to continue with his business in the allotted land without any interruption.
WPC 19148/18 4
I have heard Smt.Meenu Thampi – learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan submitted that a statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it has been averred that the plot allotted to the petitioner had been kept idle by him, without being put to any use and that this amounts to a transgression of the terms of the allotment. He submitted that, as is limpid from Ext.P15, even though the petitioner was given several opportunities to show cause why the plot shall not be resumed, he refused to respond to them or to appear before the competent respondent; and therefore, they had no other option but to issue Ext.P15. He asserted that, therefore, Ext.P15 is irreproachable and prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
I have given the afore submissions a
WPC 19148/18 5 detailed thought and have also examined Ext.P15, which is the order impugned in this Writ Petition.
There can be no doubt, going by Ext.P15, that the petitioner had been given several opportunities of appearing before the competent Authority to explain why action should not be taken for resumption of the plot in question. The said order also records that the petitioner did not appear on any such occasion and therefore, that they were constrained to follow the report of the officers entrusted with the task of verification, to thus hold that the property had not been used after the year 2011. 8. However, what is relevant in this case is that the petitioner explains that he was not keeping well during that period and was, therefore, not able to appear before the competent Authorities. It is also averred by the petitioner that he had preferred objections to
WPC 19148/18 6 all notices issued to him, showing sufficient cause why action should not be taken against him, but that the authority still proceeded to issue Ext.P15. 9. I see that this writ petition has been filed as early as in the year 2018 and that it has been remaining before this Court for the last more than three years. It has not been, however, brought to my notice by any of the parties that the land has been resumed or that another person/entity has been allotted the same until now.
I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner must be given a last latitude by way of indulgence, to present his case before the competent Authority, so that a final decision can be taken as to whether action as proposed through Ext.P15 requires to be enforced or if he can be given one more opportunity to continue business in the allotted plot.
WPC 19148/18 7
For this purpose, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent on a particular date; and when I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner, she submitted that her client will do so at 11 a.m. on 29.09.2021. 12. I, therefore, enquired with the learned Senior Government Pleader if the 1st respondent can hear the petitioner again, to which he submitted that there is no impediment in doing so; but prayed that it may be clarified that this is not as a matter of right, but only as an indulgence. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P15; with a consequential direction to the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at 11 a.m. on 29.09.2021, along with all necessary documents and materials in his possession to establish his case; in which event, the 1st respondent will
WPC 19148/18 8 either hear him on that day or fix another convenient date for hearing in future and decide whether action, as originally proposed through Ext.P15, is required to be taken against him. Needless to say, until such time as the afore directed exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, the status quo as on today with respect to the plot available will be maintained by both sides. RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
WPC 19148/18 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19148/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: THEOF THE CERTIFICATE OF RENEWAL OF DURG LICENSE NO.62/25D/2009 DATED 5.6.2013. EXHIBIT-P2: THEOF THE CERTIFICATE OF RENEWAL OF GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE (GMP) WITH NO.557 DATED 5.6.2013. EXHIBIT-P3: THEOF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.11.2017 FOR FURTHER RENEWAL OF EXHIBITS-P1& P2. EXHIBIT-P4: THEOF THE CHALANS SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF FEE FOR RENEWAL DATED 24.11.2017. EXHIBIT-P5: THEOF THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER DATED 24.6.2008. EXHIBIT-P6: THEOF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.7.2011. EXHIBIT-P7: THEOF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE ISSUED BY THE SUB
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.