Dismissed

M.Duraisamy and 3 Others v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Jan 2017WP/6083/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed writ petitions challenging a Government Order that cancelled industrial allotments and denied loan sanctions to Adi Dravida petitioners. The court held that petitioners could not compel loan disbursement and validly claim only had no fundamental right to loans after failing to utilize the allotment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; Government Order upheld.

M.Duraisamy and 3 Others Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

W.P. Nos.6083, 8395 and 10461 of 2003 &

¶6

connected Miscellaneous Petitions

¶7

1 M. Duraisamy 2 P. Rathnam 3 S. Suresh 4 A. Bharathi Babu Petitioners in WP No.6083 of 2003 Sundaram Petitioner in WP No.8395 of 2003 1 C.S. Arunaman 2 S.N. Sreedharan Petitioners in WP No.10461 of 2003 vs.

¶8

1 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶9

2 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation Ltd. Anna Nagar Chennai 600 101

¶10

3 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Nandanam Chennai 600 035 Respondents in all the WPs

¶11

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

¶12

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No.110 dated 30.12.2002 of the first respondent cancelling the allotment of industrial units at Mudalipalayam read with Lr.No.H5/8234/93-1 dated 22.02.2003 issued by the 2^nd respondent along with the Order No.TIIC/HO/Project/P-240/2001-2002 dated 25.02.2002 of the 3^rd respondent denying the benefit of loan to the petitioners, in spite of sanction for the industrial units and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the respondents to grant the petitioners all the necessary assistance, including monetary assistance in terms of the scheme framed under G.O. 165, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 25.07.1992 issued by the first respondent for promoting the entrepreneurship among the Adi Dravidars.

¶13

Since the prayer in all these three writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

¶14

2 These writ petitions are filed calling in question the legality and validity of G.O. Ms. No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002, whereby and whereunder, the allotment of industrial units at Mudalipalayam was cancelled and for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioners, all the necessary assistance, including monetary assistance, in terms of the scheme framed under G.O. 165, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 25.07.1992 for promoting entrepreneurship among the Adi Dravidars.

¶15

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

¶16

3 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶17

4 It is seen that the petitioners belong to Adi Dravida community and they were allotted plots for establishing industrial units in Mudalipalayam Industrial Estate in Coimbatore District. Since the petitioners belong to underprivileged community, the Government had instructed Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (for brevity “TIIC”) to give them the necessary loan for establishing the industry. The Government had also stood guarantee for the loan to some extent.

¶18

5 While so, for some reasons, good or bad, the petitioners were not able to avail the loan that was sanctioned by TIIC, on account of which, the loan lapsed as early as February 2002. Therefore, TIIC appears to have informed the petitioners of the fact that the loan sanctioned had lapsed. Thereafter, the Government wanted to further augment the usage of the industrial plots. Hence, the Government passed G.O. Ms. No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002, under which, the sheds were directed to be allotted to Self Help Groups with experience. Challenging the said Government Order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions.

¶19

6 Concededly, the petitioners did not reap the benefits of the loan that was sanctioned to them by TIIC. The petitioners cannot compel TIIC, by way of a mandamus, to disburse loans, inasmuch as they do not have any fundamental right to avail of loans. When once the petitioners had failed to make use of the allotment made to them, it is open to the Government to explore alternative avenues to put to use the various sheds in the industrial units. Therefore, the impugned Government Order cannot be said to be illegal.

¶20

In view of the foregoing discussion, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

cad

¶23

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

¶24

To
1 The Secretary
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2 The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing
Development Corporation Ltd.
Anna Nagar
Chennai 600 101
3 The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Ltd.
Nandanam
Chennai 600 035
+3cc to Mr.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.534,533,532,531.
+1cc to Mr.Jaseem Mohamed, Advocate, S.R.No.713
+1cc to Mr.Row & Reddy, Advocate, S.R.No.542
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.542
VSN(CO)
RS(25/01/2017)
W.P. Nos.6083, 8395 and 10461 of 2003

¶25

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

M.Duraisamy and 3 Others v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Duraisamy and 3 Others v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Emmanuel Joseph Vs the Government of India

T.Thiayagarajan Vs Chennai Meropolitan Develop

K.Ravikumar Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

Sree Annapoorna Vs Union of India

Pulavar Patchaimuthu, Vs Mr.Periaswamy

The Management of Shrivari Vs the Presideing Officer