Writ petition challenging orders denying canteen plot allotment to petitioner was disposed of. Court noted eviction notice but allowed tenant to reply, permitting respondent to proceed with law.
Writ petition disposed of; No costs; Connected M.P. closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.23407 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
A.Moorthy S/o.Arumugam Carrying on business as Amma Canteen S.F.No.168 169 Sidco Industrial Estate Phase No.IV V & VI Sipcot Zuzuvadi Village Hosur Tk. Krishnagiri Dt.
[ Petitioner ]
Vs
reg. O/o. at Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate
[ Respondents]
2
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the letter made in Rc. No.24/C/14 dated 21.3.2014 of the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider allotment of the plot to petitioner where he is running the canteen at S.F.No.168 169 Sidco Industrial Estate Phase No.IV V & VI SIPCOT Zuzuvadi Village Hosur Taluk Krishnagiri District.
For petitioner : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Dhanaskaran For respondents : Mr.Abdul Saleem (R1 & R2) Mr.R.Prabhakaran (R4)
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 21.3.2014 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider allotment of the plot to the petitioner, where he is running the canteen at S.F.No.168, 169 Sidco Industrial Estate, Phase No.IV V & VI SIPCOT Zuzuvadi Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
3
letter was submitted along with surrounding industrial workers and others for allotting the said place for running a big canteen to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, on 22.11.1990, the said place was allotted to the 3rd respondent with certain conditions. On accepting the terms and conditions imposed, by receiving the allotment order, the 3rd respondent started to evict the petitioner from that place by adopting methods of force. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a requisition letter to the 3rd respondent on 11.02.1991 by paying Rs.25,000/- for advance and Rs.50,000/- for construction a canteen building in that place for continuing the business and the same was accepted by the 3rd respondent and the eviction works were stopped and construction was permitted. It is pertinent to mention that the said place was leased out to the petitioner for a period of 5 years on 22.03.1991. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while the petitioner was running the canteen after completing the construction till date, after paying all the charges and after collecting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the 3rd respondent association purposes from 1986 to 2014, the 3rd respondent association was changed as 4th respondent association and hence the 4th respondent had approached the respondents 1 and 2 for approval of name transfer and after obtaining the same, they approached for execution of sale deed in favour of them by claiming the allotment
4
order dated 29.11.1990. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 4th respondent, obtained the sale deed on 24.08.2012, through the allotment order passed on 29.11.1990 in favour of the 3rd respondent, after a long gap of 13 years, without paying the sale consideration and by playing fraudulent name transfer of the 3rd respondent. It is his contention that on 20.12.2013, the 4th respondent had sent a communication stating that their association had decided to put up a permanent building for office of the association and therefore, called upon to vacate and hand over possession, by also claiming rental arrears. That apart, according to the learned Senior Counsel, when the petitioner approached the 1st respondent requesting them to allot the said plot to the petitioner, a communication dated 21.03.2014 was received from the 2nd respondent to the effect that the said place have already been allotted to the 4th respondent and a sale deed has also been executed and therefore, the request sought for cannot be considered. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5
6
which the petitioner can very well submit their reply meeting out all the points raised. It is always open to the 4th respondent to proceed with regard to eviction as well as taking possession of the property occupied by the writ petitioner in the manner known to law.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.01.2016
rg To
1 Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director reg. O/o. at Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai-32
7
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
rg
W.P.No.23407 of 2014
04.01.2016
A.Moorthy S/o.Arumugam Carrying on business as Amma Canteen
Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corpn. Ltd.
The Small Industries Assn.
Hosur Small and Tiny Industries Assn. (HOSTIA)
R. MAHADEVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
