The petitioner is a co-operative society where members of the society are automobile workers. The society is running with a small capital, which is being reserved from the limited income of its members, according to the petitioner society. The petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent for allotment of land at the KINFRA Small Industries Park, Tellicherry, in order to start a business venture of upholstery unit. Accordingly, as per Ext.P1 allotment letter, 0.10 Acres of land had been allotted to the petitioner in order to construct a building for setting up an industrial unit for upholstery work in the Small Industries Park,
W.P.(c) No. 24913 of 2013 -: 2 :-
Tellicherry. As per the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 allotment letter, the petitioner herein was required to construct the building and start the commercial production within a period of 2 years from the date of agreement. But due to financial stringency and poor economic condition of the petitioner society, the society was unable to construct the building and start the production as stipulated in Ext.P1 allotment letter. But, as per the terms of agreement, evident from Exts.P1(a) to P1(e), the petitioner society remitted a total sum of `1,17,411/- in the account of the 2nd respondent. The society has taken all its earnest efforts to start the upholstery unit by overcoming the financial stringency; but the society could not materialise the same. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 notice stating that the petitioner's request for extension of time for implementing the project in the land is rejected and decided to cancel the allotment of 0.10 Acres of land allotted to the society. The 2nd respondent has refunded the amount deposited by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on
W.P.(c) No. 24913 of 2013 -: 3 :-
receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner sent Ext.P8 representation stating the details of the earnest efforts which they have taken to start the Unit and sought for review of Ext.P2 by which the allotment was cancelled. But, there is no response from the 2nd respondent so far, despite the long lapse of more than 7 months.
3. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 representation.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the relief sought for in this writ petition is reasonable and the 1st respondent is inclined to take a decision on Ext.P8 representation.
5. In that view, the 1st respondent is directed to take a decision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on Ext.P8 representation, within a period of two months from today.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge