Dismissed

Mr.S.K.Kamala v. the Tamil Nadu Samll Inust

Madras HC10 Nov 2008WP/3060/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against the cancellation of an industrial shed allotment, holding the petition liable for a seven-year laches delay. However, the Court directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount less a Rs.1,000 earnest money deposit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Respondent directed to refund total amount deposited less Rs.1,000/- earnest money deposit within four weeks.

Mr.S.K.Kamala Vs the Tamil Nadu Samll Inust — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Date:- 10.11.2008

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN

¶5

W.P. No.3060 of 2003 and W.P.M.P. No.3841 of 2003

¶6

Mrs. K. Kamala ...Petitioner

¶7

..vs..

¶8

The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Paulwel's Road, Kathipara Junction, Chennai – 600 016. ...Respondent

¶9

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent No.4514/IE3/96 dated 18.9.1996 and quash the same in so far as the cancellation of the allotment of shed measuring 490 sq.ft with a land area of 1530 sq.ft. Near SBI godown, Industrial Estate, Guindy and direct the respondent to reconsider the application and revoke the cancellation order.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. S.M. Pandian For Respondents : Mr. B. Shanthakumar

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in No.4514/IE3/96, dated 18.9.1996, and quash the same in so far as it relates to cancellation of the allotment of a shed measuring 490 sq.ft. with a land area of 1530 sq.ft. near SBI godown, Industrial Estate, Guindy and to direct the respondent to reconsider the application and to revoke the cancellation order.

¶13

The petitioner has stated that she has been running a small scale industry from the year 1993, under the name and style of S.R.G. Industries. She had also obtained a Small Scale Industries

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

certificate from the industrial department. For carrying out the job work of Desk Top Publishing, Documentation for various firms etc., she made an application to the respondent, on 26.3.1996, to allot an industrial shed measuring about 490 sq.ft. near SBI Godown, Guindy. By a letter, dated 28.3.1996, issued by the then Chairman and the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited, she was allotted a shed measuring about 490 sq.ft. near SBI Godown, Guindy, on condition that she should remit the entire amount towards the cost of the shed. She had also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards additional security deposit, in addition to the deposit of Rs.1,000/-, already made. In the said allotment letter, the cost of the plot allotted to the petitioner was Rs.65,900/- and the cost of the building was shown as 93,000/-. The petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.1,71,960/-.

¶16

Later, the petitioner received a letter, dated 13.7.1996, from the respondent to appear before the Allotment Committee, on 23.7.1996, and the petitioner had sent all the necessary details. However, by the impugned order, dated 18.9.1996, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled without mentioning any specific reasons for such cancellation. The order of cancellation is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. Due to the cancellation of the allotment made in her favour, the petitioner has been put to serious prejudice and hardship

¶17

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled due to the fact that necessary documents, including the project report, letter obtained from the Bank or other approved financial institutions and the Small Scale Industries Certificate required by the respondent, by a letter, dated 13.7.1996, were not submitted by the petitioner and also due to the fact that the area allotted to the petitioner for the construction of the shed was not suitable for the purpose of establishing an industry. For the said reasons, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled.

¶18

In spite of the impugned order having been communicated to the petitioner in the year 1996, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of filing this writ petition only in the year 2003 and it is an unexplained delay of seven years. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Further, the petitioner, does not have any right for the allotment of the shed in the Guindy Industrial Estate, as claimed by her. Since she has not complied with the necessary conditions, the allotment made in her favour has been cancelled. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient reasons for setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 18.9.1996, cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the industrial Estate, Guindy. Further, the petitioner has not explained the reason for the long delay of more than seven years in preferring the writ petition after the impugned order had been passed by the respondent i.e on 18.9.1996. On a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner has not submitted the necessary documents nor had she given any particulars required by the respondent for confirmation of the allotment made in her favour.

¶21

In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However, the respondent is
directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioner,
pursuant to the allotment made in her favour, deducting a sum of
Rs.1,000/- as earnest money deposit, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the
connected W.P.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.
sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
ssa.
To
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited,
Paulwel's Road, Kathipara Junction,
Chennai – 600 016.
+ 1 c.c. to Mr. S.M. Pandian, Advocate. S.R.No.62320.
+ 1 c.c. to Mr. B. Shanthakumar, S.C.C.G. S.R.No.62260.
W.P. No.3060 of 2003 and
connected W.P.M.P.
MSM (CO)
GSK 23.12.2008.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.S.K.Kamala v. the Tamil Nadu Samll Inust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.S.K.Kamala v. the Tamil Nadu Samll Inust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt. K.Ranganayagam Vs Director of School Education

K.Ramalingam Vs the District Collector

P. Ismail Pillai Annavi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

M/S.Classic Thread Mills Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep

M/S.Classic Thread Mills Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep

M/S.Vikram Sat Vision Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by