The allotment of industrial land must adhere to established priority rules, ensuring fairness and transparency in the distribution of state resources.

JUDGMENT :

(P.M. MANOJ, J.)

The writ petition is preferred primarily challenging Ext.P5 letter issued by the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter by amending the writ petition, further challenges are made to Exts.P6, P18 and P19.

2. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to allotment of plot in the industrial or developmental area, Aroor which is confined to a plot measuring 30 cents resumed from the possession of M/s. Periyar Engineering. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P3 priority list of entrepreneurs published in the year 2014, petitioner held rank No.3, while another person, Mr. Salarudeen (who is now deceased), held rank No. 7, and the 4^th respondent held rank No. 18.

3. The Rules pertaining to the allotment is Ext.P1. As per Rule 5, the application for land under these Rules shall be disposed of taking into consideration the desirability and suitability of the industry proposed in the area and also the capacity of the applicant to conduct the industry or any other matter the department may consider relevant. Any application can be rejected by the department without assigning reasons therefore.

4. On the basis of aforementioned provision, the applications were considered and the priority list was published as per Ext.P2. The petitioner was in higher position, i.e., rank No.3 and the 4^th respondent was on 18^th rank. He had not chosen to challenge the position assigned to the petitioner.

5. As stated earlier, the writ petition was filed in the year 2014 challenging the recommendation of the 3^rd respondent in favour of the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P5. Thereafter, on the knowledge of steps being taken to allot the plot to the 4^th respondent, the writ petition was amended. The proceedings of the 3^rd respondent and the recommendation of the District Level Project Appraisal Committee, whereby the decisions taken to allot the plot to the 4^th respondent in violation of the principles enshrined in Ext.P1, were challenged.

6. Originally while considering the writ petition which challenged Ext.P5 alone, this Court interdicted the allotment by order dated 20.12.2014. Even thereafter, the 3^rd respondent, on directions of the 2^nd respondent, issued Ext.P6 order dated 22.12.2014. This being in violations of the directions of this Court, a contempt case was preferred. In the light of the contempt case, by order dated 22.12.2014, Ext.P6 order itself was kept in abeyance till the disposal of WP(C) No.35160 of 2014. On recording such submission, the contempt case was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner amended the writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order and its minutes and recommendations of the District Level Project Appraisal Committee as Exts.P18 and P19 respectively.

7. The facts involved in the case is that the petitioner, an entrepreneur, applied for allotment of a plot within the Aroor industrial area, which is under the control of the 3^rd respondent for setting up a marine products exporting unit. The allotment was governed by Ext.P1 Rules. By Rule 5 as stated earlier, the application has to be disposed inter alia assessing the suitability and desirability of the proposed industry and capacity of the applicant. On making such assessment a priority list was published as per Ext.P3. The petitioner was the 3^rd position whereas the 4^th respondent was in the 18^th position. The requirement of the petitioner was for 50 cents. While so, a plot having an extent of 69 cents as well as another plot having 30 cents were resumed from the possession of previous allottees namely M/s. Periyar Engineering. The 1^st plot having 69 cents was divided and allotted to the first two persons in Ext.P3 rank list. The petitioner was the 3^rd one available from Ext.P3 rank list. But the 3^rd respondent had taken steps to allot 30 cents resumed from M/s. Periyar Engineering to the 4^th respondent, who was in rank No.18. That is evident from Ext.P4. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent further approached the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P5 for overcoming the procedural hurd