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. 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 hurdles on pointing out certain advantages by allotting the property to the 4 th respondent. In that stage, the writ petition was preferred. Even though it was interdicted by this Court by Ext.P6, it was taken a decision by proceedings dated 22.12.2014 to allot 25 cents out of the 30 cents to the 4 th respondent. In that stage, the writ petition was preferred. Even though it was interdicted by this Court by Ext.P6, it was taken a decision by proceedings dated 22.12.2014 to allot 25 cents out of the 30 cents to the 4 th respondent. By amending the writ petition, that order was also challenged. 8. By filing a counter affidavit dated 07.02.2015, the 4th respondent resisted the case by production of the minutes of the meeting and the recommendations of the purchase level committee that led to Ext.P6. It is also contended, as per the provisions in Ext.P1 Rules the petitioner does not have any right to get the plot allotted as directed in Ext.R4(g) since he has not started units in some of the lands already allotted to him within this industrial area. 9. Thereafter a counter affidavit dated 19.02.2015 was filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, wherein it is specifically contended that the project report was submitted by the 4 th respondent requiring an additional extent of 25 cents of land for the expansion of its existing unit. The requirement of 1 st and 2 nd rank holders in Ext.P2 rank list was already satisfied by apportioning 65 cents of land resumed from M/s. Periyar Engineering. The counter affidavit justifies the reasons in allotting the 30 cents to the 4 th respondent. One of the reasons is that the petitioner required 50 cents and the land available was only 30 cents which was not adequate to implement the project of the petitioner. Therefore, the 4 th respondent’s project, which was more viable than that of the petitioner was to be considered. 10. The petitioner replied to the contentions by preferring an affidavit dated 20.02.2015 whereby it is contended that Ext.P3 priority list was preferred after assessing the desirability and suitability of the industry etc. There is no provision to receive any additional project report and allot land to persons ranked in lower position in preference to that of the persons placed in higher ranks. It is also contended that as per Ext.P7 letter, the petitioner has also intimated his willingness to set up a unit in the plot in question even if it is 30 cents. It is also contended that as per Ext.P7 letter, the petitioner has also intimated his willingness to set up a unit in the plot in question even if it is 30 cents. It is further contended that out of the 5 plots allotted to the petitioner, as there is no prohibition as per Rule 11 and 12 of Ext.P1, in two plots the units could not be started due to reasons beyond his control. As per Ext.P9 report of the District Level Appraisal Committee, there is already a food processing unit in 73 cents of land allotted to the 4 th respondent. However, it is replied by the 4 th respondent that the said unit is only under construction. 11. In such circumstance, the petitioner produced the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Director, and the report of the District Level Project Appraisal Committee as Ext.P18 and P19 respectively. The writ petition was got amended as stated earlier. Thereby the challenges are raised against Exts.P5, P6, P18 and P19. 12. In response to the said amendment, the 3rd respondent filed another counter affidavit wherein it is contended that the 4 th respondent required the plot in question for the expansion of the project, which was under implementation in an extent of 73 cents of land. 13. It is further contended that the case of M/s. A.S. Traders, which was not in the priority list of 2011, was given allotment on the basis of Rule 7 of Ext.P1 as the Government have sufficient powers and privilege to allot the land to any industry, considering any other relevant matters on obtaining special sanction from the Government for shifting a running Industry by settling the then law and order situation in the area. 14. However, the petitioner resisted those contentions. Under no circumstance the official respondents have powers for violating the priority possession in Ext.P3. The reason so assigned that the petitioner requires 50 cents and the available land is 30 cents cannot be considered at all, since the said allotment is in violation of the priority list prepared as per Ext.P3 in compliance with Ext.P1 rules. Further, the allotment was for 54 cents to the 2 nd rank holder, against his requirement of 100 cents. Further, the allotment was for 54 cents to the 2 nd rank holder, against his requirement of 100 cents. Similarly, if 25 cents of land is allotted to the 4 th respondent against a requirement of 1.25 Acres, there is nothing wrong in allotting 30 cents to the petitioner against his request for 50 cents, which appears to be paradoxical. 15. It is also contended by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent suppressed certain facts regarding the proposal of allotment to some other lands to the 4 th respondent by the committee so as to see that Exts.P18 and P19 are obtained for issuing Ext.P6 allotment in favour of the 4 th respondent. Even during the pendency of this writ petition, 35 cents resumed from one M/s. Bio Tech Private Ltd, and another 23 cents resumed from Varada Paints were allotted to the 4 th respondent. Now the 4 th respondent is renamed as Premier Marine Foods. 16. It is further contended that the averments by the 3rd respondent as per statement dated 08.08.2024 has no relevance since the allotment in question is covered by Ext.P1 Rules as the same was prevailing at that point of time. This was rightly contended in the reply affidavit dated 09.09.2024. Therefore, no such contention can be raised at this point of time. The petitioner is also refuting the contention of the 3 rd respondent that the petitioner is trying to secure industrial land from the Government only to transfer it to others with malafide financial motives. The questions with respect to the prior allotment and failure in fructifying the project, cannot be dragged into 2014 issue. That includes the allotment of 40 cents of land for setting up of a unit inter alia for the manufacturing chitosan/chitin under the name and style of Thahira Chemicals. Another extent of 15.12 cents of land, which was previously occupied by BSNL, was later allotted to the petitioner. Due to a pending litigation; however, it did not become functional. In a similar situation, allotment of another extent of 18.1 cents, which belonged to KSEB at that point in time, was allotted to the petitioner. Both of these lands are adjacent to one another. Due to a pending litigation; however, it did not become functional. In a similar situation, allotment of another extent of 18.1 cents, which belonged to KSEB at that point in time, was allotted to the petitioner. Both of these lands are adjacent to one another. Moreover, the expansion of the industrial unit to include an additional activity, i.e., the manufacturing of Ayurvedic medicines (a value-added product from shrimp shells) within the premises of Thahira Chemicals, was objected to by the local people. Consequently, the drug license was not issued. Accordingly, the 3 rd respondent, as per Ext.P25 proceedings, granted permission to shift the expanded unit of Ayurvedic medicine from the premises of Tahira chemicals to the plot of 18.1 cents, which was later allotted for the expansion of Tahira Chemicals as per Annexure R3(f). Subsequently, this unit commenced operations under the name M/s. Manara Bio Pharma with due permission. For all these purposes, necessary licences and permits were obtained by M/s.Thahira Chemicals in the name of brother-in-law and sister- in-law of the petitioner, which were approved by the 3 rd respondent as evident in Ext.R3(h). 17. All these issues were pointed out to show that these activities happened after issuance of Ext.R4(g) dated 26.05.2014, for which Rules of allotment was not a hindrance as stated in Ext.R4(g). Another 14.6 cents of land allotted as per Ext.R3(g) in the interregnum is a purchase by the petitioner after complying with all the formalities which was not prohibited as per Ext.P1 Rules where an ice plant is successfully running, which is beneficial to the petitioner as well as the other persons involved in the marine allied businesses. With respect to the property allotted to the Magnum Glasses, the issue is now pending before the Apex Court and the petitioner is not a partner in that business and thereby the contentions that keeping two previously allotted land left unutilised has no sustenance. 18. Respondents 2 and 3 have not come up with a case that the petitioner is not generating any income from the business including foreign exchange and they are not giving employment to the considerable number of people. Thereby a comparison drawn by respondents 2 and 3 with the 4 th respondent cannot be accepted. Therefore, the reasons assigned for denying the allotment to the petitioner is not at all justified. Thereby a comparison drawn by respondents 2 and 3 with the 4 th respondent cannot be accepted. Therefore, the reasons assigned for denying the allotment to the petitioner is not at all justified. The petitioner is a renounced entrepreneur in biomedical products including manufacturing of soluble surgery threads made from the discarded waste of prawns and other marine products which are having high market value and demand both in India as well as abroad. Therefore, any contention with respect to feasibility of the project is not sustainable. With respect to the available space, the project can be implemented by construction of the plant in vertical way as evident from Ext.P7 letter. From the above facts, it can be seen that no sufficient reasons to allot the land to the 4 th respondent are offered by respondents 2 and 3 in preference to the petitioner, who was in the third position. 19. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention of this Court in Akhil Bartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [ 2011 (5) SCC 29 ] wherein the question with respect to the power of the State Government to allot 20 Acres of land to the 5 th respondent without issuing an advertisement or adopting a procedure inconsistent with the doctrine of equality so as to enable other similar organisations/institutions to participate in the process of allotment. It was held that there is no provision in the Act or Rules even in the RBC, for allotment of land without issuing advertisement and/or without inviting application from eligible persons to participate in the process of allotment, further directing the State Government is to refund the amount deposited by the 5 th respondent within a period of 15 days, by evaluating the concept of State or distribution of State Largesse etc and the precedents. 20. In the case in hand the State Largesse in the form of development land is to be allotted based on the Rules framed for the same, that is Ext.P1 wherein Rule 5 describes the disposal of application for allotment. If that requirement is satisfied a priority list has to be published with respect to the prospective entrepreneurs. Hence, Ext.P5 recommendation in favour of the 4 th respondent is in violation of Ext.P3 list prepared based on comparative merits of the parties. If that requirement is satisfied a priority list has to be published with respect to the prospective entrepreneurs. Hence, Ext.P5 recommendation in favour of the 4 th respondent is in violation of Ext.P3 list prepared based on comparative merits of the parties. It is also contended that the meeting at the instance of the Joint Director or the 3 rd respondent which lead to Exts.P18 and P19, is not contemplated under the provisions of Ext.P1 Rules. Therefore, Ext.P6 order pursuant to Exts.P18 and P19 cannot be treated as legal, fair, just or proper in the matter of distribution of State largesse. 21. All these contentions are resisted by the 4th respondent. The contentions raised by the petitioner has no merit since the requirement is 50 cents and the availability is only 30 cents. Whereas the requirement of the 4 th respondent for allotment is only 25 cents out of the 30 cents therefore the 4 th respondent is more probable entrepreneur by the extent of land. The writ petitioner was already allotted by six plots, out of which industrial units were started only in 3 plots. It is against the spirit of Ext.R4(g) which says that if the plots were allotted and the units were not functioned within six months and if it is transferred, no other land could be allotted to such persons. Therefore, there is a specific bar for allotment of the land to such other persons. Hence the petitioner is disqualified in terms of Ext.R4(g). Moreover, on the strength of Ext.R4(b)/Ext.P6 the petitioner has remitted the value of land for an amount of Rs.1,39,000/- on 22.12.2014 itself. Going by Ext.R4(b) the decision was taken by the Director, District Industries Centre on 17.02.2014 by which permission was granted to allot 25 cents to the 4 th respondent, that is prior to the interim order. 22. Whereas going by the contentions in the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent, Exts.R3(d) to (g) would show that the petitioner has sought for substitution of plots and it was granted and that he has alienated or transferred it to some other company and that happened even during the pendency of the writ petition, which shows that the petitioner no longer requires the land for any industrial purposes. 23. 23. On the other hand, the allotment was sought for developing the existing industrial unit and for expanding the project of the 4 th respondent, thereby the 4 th respondent is more qualified than the petitioner. Hence the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot sustain. 24. I have heard Smt. Vaheeda Babu the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Binoy Davis the learned Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. 25. Primarily, the issue involved in this case is the allotment of plots in the industrial development area, Aroor. The petitioner herein sought for allotment of 50 cents where as the 4 th respondent sought for 25 cents. Both of them are claiming to start a new unit/to expand the existing unit. For these purpose, the gaining full principles are enshrined in Ext.P1 which was the extant rules at the time of consideration of their requisitions. Rule 5 prescribes the method for disposal of such applications. After the assessment of desirability and suitability of the industry proposed in the area a priority list has to be published for just and equitable distribution of the industrial land among the applicants. 26. Here Ext.P3 list was prepared wherein the petitioner held originally in 3 rd position and the 4 th respondent held only in 18 th position. After satisfying the higher ranks prior to the respondent, when the claim of the plot in dispute came, the petitioner should have been the person of first choice. Whatever be the reason, overlooking his priority and without properly appreciating the facts involved, granting allotment to the 18 th person in rank, appears to be not just and fair. That too during the pendency of the writ petition, which challenges a proposal to allot the plot to the 4 th respondent. Prior to making any allotment nothing prevents the official respondents in approaching this Court for obtaining any permission in this regard. There is no point in arguing by the 4 th respondent that the decision was taken prior to the date of interdiction by this Court. In fact the 4 th respondent as well as the official respondents were well aware that a writ petition was pending before this Court which is a matter of subjudice. There is no point in arguing by the 4 th respondent that the decision was taken prior to the date of interdiction by this Court. In fact the 4 th respondent as well as the official respondents were well aware that a writ petition was pending before this Court which is a matter of subjudice. Going by the swiftness of the actions and the payment made as per Ext.P6, it appears that it was a well-planned move. 27. Both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent are having multiple units within the industrial development area in Aroor. In fact this is a factual question which is to be decided by the official respondents. This Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution to determine the weightage of the applicants for the proposed land allotment. However, the formalities adopted by the official respondents to allot the land to the 4 th respondent during the pendency of the writ petition do not appear to be just and fair as detailed in the averments above. The 4 th respondent should not get any advantage solely because of the payment already made. Rest of the questions are to be decided by the official respondents in accordance with Ext.P1 rules alone not as in the present rules. 28. In this regard, the State has to adopt the principles laid down by the Apex Court in City Montessori School v. State of UP [2024 KHC 6409] wherein it was held as follows: “8. Before we consider the rival contentions, the legal position regarding the State largesse succinctly laid down by this Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others needs to be reiterated. In paragraphs 65 to 67 of the said decision, this Court held thus: “65. What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. In paragraphs 65 to 67 of the said decision, this Court held thus: “65. What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non- discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.” Originally this principle was laid down by Apex Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress supra which was reiterated in City Montessori's case. 29. Going by the aforementioned decisions, it appears that the official respondents are obligated to consider Ext.P7 wherein the petitioner himself contends that he is willing to start the unit even on allotting 30 cents by effective constructions vertically for installing the plants required for them. This part is silent in the contentions of the official respondents. Rather it appears that the official respondents are somehow favouring the 4 th respondent without providing specific reason than the extent of land since after Ext.P7 that contention has no sustenance. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders - Exts.P5, P6, P18 and P19 cannot sustain. Accordingly, the same are quashed and remitted the matter back to the competent among the official respondents to reconsider in the light of Ext.P1. 30. Now, the claim raised is against 30 cents of land which was resumed from the possession of M/s. Periyar Engineering by the petitioner and the 4 th respondent. The official respondents will have to consider their respective claims on its merits, irrespective of the payment made by the 4 th respondent. 30. Now, the claim raised is against 30 cents of land which was resumed from the possession of M/s. Periyar Engineering by the petitioner and the 4 th respondent. The official respondents will have to consider their respective claims on its merits, irrespective of the payment made by the 4 th respondent. A detailed speaking order shall be passed with respect to the assessment of the projects proposed by both the petitioner and the 4 th respondent. This order will reflect a considered decision, taking into account the principles laid down by the Apex Court in City Montessori’s case cited (supra) etc. In the event the official respondents deciding to allot the land to the petitioner, naturally the payment already made by the 4 th respondent as evident in Ext.R4(c) shall be returned to the 4 th respondent with its accrued bank interest. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.