Ext.P4 order, by which the allotment of an industrial shed granted to the petitioner by the first respondent was terminated, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was allotted an industrial shed by the first respondent, the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’, for short, during 2005 and as per Ext.P4 order, the said allotment was cancelled. Ext.P4 recites that the petitioner has kept the industrial unit established in the shed idle for a very long time in violation of the terms of allotment and he has not responded to the notices issued by the Corporation, directing him to utilise the shed allotted to him. Ext.P4 order refers to a final notice issued to the petitioner on 24.5.2014 and the recital in Ext.P4 concerning the said notice is that the petitioner has, though received the same, he did not respond to the request made therein.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was not issued any notice at all and that the final notice referred to in Ext.P4 has not been served on him. On 1.8.2014, this Court issued the following interim order:
“Admit.
Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. Statement within ten days.
Status quo shall be maintained for a period of two weeks.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the allegation in Ext.P4 that the petitioner has kept idle the unit established in the shed for a very long time is incorrect and that the unit is still functioning.
5. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on instructions, submitted that the final notice issued to the petitioner on 26.4.2014 was returned unserved and Ext.P4 order was issued on the belief that the petitioner has received the same.
6. It is not disputed that the final notice referred to in Ext.P4 has not been served on the petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate as to what was the endorsement made by the postal authorities on the returned postal article. It is, therefore, established that the harshest step of termination has been taken without complying with the principles of natural justice. Further, even though the petitioner asserts that he is still running the industrial unit in the allotted shed, the Corporation is unable to dispute the same.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I feel that the question of termination of the shed allotted to the petitioner has to be reconsidered by the Corporation, after notice to the petitioner and after conducting a physical verification of the shed allotted to the petitioner.
8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of as follows :
The petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the first respondent, within a period of two weeks from today, pointing out the true state of affairs and producing the supporting evidence. A decision shall be taken on the question of termination based on the representation submitted by the petitioner as directed above, within a period of one month thereafter, after affording to the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing and also after conducting a physical verification of the premises of the allotted shed. Until a final decision is taken in the matter, the interim order passed by this court on 1.8.2014 will continue.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)