Writ petition challenging the cancellation of an industrial plot allotment by SIDCO due to delayed payment. The court upheld the cancellation, directing the respondents to refund the paid amount within four weeks.
Petitioner not granted relief; respondents directed to refund amount paid within four weeks.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :16.07.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.21206 of 2008
and M.P.Nos. 1 of 2008 & 1 of 2011
S.Lakshmipathy Proprietor M/s. Sunshine Graphics, No.22, Thiruneermalai Main Road, Saraswathipuram, Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044. ..Petitioner
vs
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to R.C.No. 16606/Y2/2003 dated 24.04.2008 passed by the office of the Chairman and Managing Director Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and quash the same, consequently direct the Respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,56,500/- with 17% interest.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Govinda Reddy For Respondents : Mr.S.Yaswanth
O R D E R
The petitioner filed this Writ Petition, for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to R.C.No.16606/Y2/2003 dated 24.04.2008 passed by the office of the Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and quash the same and consequently, direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,56,500/- together with 17% interest.
submit that the Deputy General Manager by letter No.16606/42/03, dated 25.04.2005, informed that he was permitted to clear the dues of the plot cost upto 31.05.2005 at the revised cost applicable for the year 2005-2006 or allotted cost with interest whichever is higher. Thereafter, by their letter No.16606/Y2/2003, dated 23.06.2005, he cancelled the order of allotment forfeiting the EMD of Rs.10,000/- and steps were made to refund the balance amount by their letters dated 09.11.2005 and 28.11.2005.
Notice on 02.04.2004 requesting the petitioner to reply within 15 days as to why the allotment should not be cancelled, as per the clauses 4 and 19 of the conditions of the allotment order. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid only 25% of the cost of the plot along with interest for belated payment (i.e) Rs.1,24,575/on 28.05.2004. The petitioner has not paid the balance 75% of the cost of plot i.e. Rs.3,56,500/- which he should have paid immediately after the receipt of the second respondent's notice dated 02.04.2004. The second respondent has sent another Show Cause notice on 01.02.2005, asking the petitioner why allotment should not be cancelled for non-payment of the plot cost. The petitioner on receipt of the said notice, sought three months time for paying the balance plot cost vide letter dated 10.02.2005. The said request was also favourably considered and extension of time was granted till 31.05.2005 with a specific condition that the allottee should clear the dues at the revised cost of the plot applicable for the year 2005-2006 or the allotted cost together with interest, whichever is higher and in the said letter dated 25.05.2005, the second respondent has specifically indicated that this is the final chance given to the petitioner. Even after this extended period, the petitioner herein has not taken any positive steps towards payment of the balance cost. Hence, the respondent having no other option has cancelled the allotment vide letter Rc.No.16606/Y2/03, dated 23.06.2005, by forfeiting the EMD amount of Rs.10,000/- and stating that balance amount paid by the petitioner will be refunded separately. Subsequently, the refund was also ordered on 09.11.2005, refunding the amount of Rs. 1,24,575/- and the same was conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner was also asked to furnish the original cash receipt issued by the second respondent along with an advance stamped receipt in letter dated 28.11.2005. But, the petitioner has not responded to the same and vide his letter dated 19.05.2006, informed that he is ready to settle the entire outstanding plot cost immediately. The respondent in response to the request of the petitioner has informed that the outstanding amount is Rs.6,36,825/- and directed him to pay the said amount on or before 31.10.2006 and in the letter it has been specifically stated that only if the outstanding plot cost is paid, the cancellation order will be revoked. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not come forward to pay the revised plot cost but requested the respondent to accept the amount stated in the allotment order dated 18.12.2003. This request of the petitioner being an unjustifiable one, the second respondent has rightly rejected the request and confirmed the cancellation order vide proceedings dated 24.04.2008. Hence, he submitted that this writ petition is completely devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
i) 25% of the cost of the Developed Plot i.e. Rs.1,18,900/-... (Rupees One lakh, eighteen thousand and nine hundred only along with Rs.12,750/- towards special maintenance charges only) shall be paid within two months from the date of issue of this order.
ii) Balance 75% of the cost of the Developed Plot i.e. Rs.3,56,500/- (Rupees Three lakh, fifty six thousand and five hundred only) shall be paid within six months from the date of issue of this order. However, belated payment interest @ 17% will be charged on 25% cost of the Developed Plot after expiry of two months from the date of this order and on the balance cost after expiry of six months from the date of this order.
iii) A sum of Rs. 11,500/- towards water supply and sanitary connection charges should be paid along with 75% cost of plot.
v) If the cost of the Developed Plot is not paid within the stipulated period but on the request of the allottee, extension of time is granted by SIDCO for paying such cost, interest shall be paid at the rate of 17% p.a. or at such rate as maybe fixed by SIDCO and in force for the time being, for the defaulted amount for the defaulted period. However such extension of time will be granted or refused at the sole discretion of SIDCO. If the full cost is not paid within the stipulated period, it is the discretion of SIDCO to revise the cost upwards.
vii) All payments shall be made at the Branch Office of SIDCO, Thirumudivakkam by means of demand draft drawn in favour of TANSIDCO Ltd.
(c) If the full cost of the plot is paid but the Memorandum of Understanding is
not executed by the allottee within one month after the full cost is paid or if the plot is not taken over within one month after the execution of Memorandum of Understanding, the allotment will be cancelled subject to the provisions hereinafter contained.
The allottee shall take possession of the plot in 'as is where is condition' and no demand for further development such as earth filling and raising the level will be
entertained.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kmm
To
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order cancelling the allotment of an industrial plot due to non-payment of the balance cost within the stipulated time.
Whether the allotment order cancelling the plot and confirming forfeiture should be quashed upon recertification of the petitioner's representations.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be permitted to pay the balance plot cost after the cancellation of the allotment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Lakshmipathy Proprietor M/s. Sunshine Graphics
The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
M. Dhandapani
Justice
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
