Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to allotment of an industrial shed constructed by the 1st respondent Industrial Co-operative Society. The petitioner was one of the applicants for allotment of the industrial shed situated at the Mini Industrial Estate at Mattoor, Kalady. The petitioner submitted application for allotment of the shed for starting a chilly powder manufacturing unit. Case of the petitioner is that, he was called for interview before the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent society and it was promised that the shed in question will be alloted to the petitioner on depositing a sum of Rs.75,000/-. But it is alleged that no such allotment as promised was made despite submitting Exts.P2 & P3 representations thereafter. Subsequently it is learnt that the shed in question was alloted to the 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent requesting to cancel the allotment. Subsequently many representations were submitted before various authorities including the Government seeking to cancel the allotment and requesting to take action against the 4th respondent based on the allegation of illegal and unauthorised constructions made by her in the alloted premises. Since no action was taken by respondents 2 & 3, this writ petition is filed. Contention of the petitioner is mainly that the 4th respondent was not an applicant and that she was not interviewed before granting the allotment.
2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that, applications were called for allotment of the industrial shed by publication made locally and the 1st respondent had received 4 applications including that of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The interview was conducted on 01-10-2005. It is further stated that the decision to allot the shed to the 4th respondent was taken in a meeting of the Administrative Committee convened on 27-12-2005, as per Ext.R1 (c) minutes. Accordingly the shed was alloted to the 4th respondent through Ext.R1 (e) letter dated 20-01-2006. It is further stated that, with respect to the constructions allegedly made by the 4th respondent without permission, the 1st respondent had issued Ext.R1 (f) notice. It is also stated that the application submitted by the 4th respondent to permit construction of additional shed was rejected because of pendency of this writ petition. However it is mentioned that no steps were taken to demolish the building unauthorisedly constructed because of the interim order issued by the Government.
3. It is noticed that the allotment of the shed was taken place as early as in the year 2006. Despite specific allegations made with respect to non submission of application by the 4th respondent and with respect to non- interview of the 4th respondent, the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the specific averments contained in the counter affidavit that the 4th respondent was one among the applicants and that she was interviewed for the purpose of allotment. The version contained in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent is reiterated further by the 4th respondent in her detailed counter affidavit.
4. It is pertinent to note that, against the decision taken by the 1st respondent society for allotment of the industrial shed, no steps was seen taken to rescind the relevant resolution by invoking powers contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act. Since the dispute is mainly based on the factual aspects which was stoutly refuted, this court is not in a position to cancel the allotment based on the allegations raised, that too at this distance of time after about 9 years. Hence the relief to the extent of cancelling the allotment made in favour of the 4th respondent cannot be accepted. However, with respect to the allegation regarding unauthorised construction it is made clear that the 1st respondent will be at liberty to take appropriate steps, if any such unauthorised activity is still persisting or continuing.
Therefore this writ petition is dismissed subject to liberty reserved as mentioned above.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge