Dismissed

A. Nihila, v. the Chairman and the

Madras HC7 Apr 2022WP(MD)/14248/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, women entrepreneurs, challenged orders cancelling plot allotment due to non-payment of costs and subsequent show cause notices for non-utilization. Court held that since petitioners paid costs under interim orders, the current petitions became infructuous as non-utilization was already addressed in pending writs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petitions dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

A. Nihila, Vs the Chairman and the — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP(MD)Nos.14248 & 14249 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 07.04.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.14248 & 14249 of 2010

¶7

A.Nihila : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.14248/2010

¶8

S.Velvizhi : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.14249/2010

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Chairman and Managing Director,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Small Industries

¶12

Development Corporation Ltd., (TANSIDCO) Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate,

¶13

Chennai – 600 032.

¶14

2.The Branch Manager / Estate Officer, TANSIDCO, Kappalur, Madurai – 8. : Respondents in both WPs

¶15

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the first respondent in proceedings in R.C.No.12049/1E-2C/2008, dated 29.07.2010 and 12050/1E-2C/2008, dated 23.07.2010 and the consequential show cause notice issued by the second respondent in proceedings in R.C.No.146/A/2008, dated 22.11.2010 and 120/A/2008, dated 22.11.2010 and quash the same.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/4

¶18

WP(MD)Nos.14248 & 14249 of 2010

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran

[In both WPs]

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners before this Court are Women Entrepreneurs. They have been allotted plots in D.P.Nos.4 & 79 in Kappalur Industrial Estate, vide the orders of the respondents dated 21.10.2008. However, vide the impugned orders, the said allotments have been cancelled on the ground that the petitioners did not pay the plot costs within the specified time limit. Hence, the petitioners have moved the present writ petitions.

¶24

2.While entertaining these writ petitions, this Court, by order dated 07.12.2010, has granted interim stay on condition that the petitioners shall pay the monthly due payable upto November, 2010, within two weeks. Thereafter, by order dated 13.06.2012, the petitioners were permitted to pay quarterly installments. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the said interim directions have been complied with and the petitioners have also paid the costs.

¶25

3.Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that though the petitioners have paid the plot costs pursuant to the directions of this Court, they have not utilized the plots for quite a long time. Neither they have developed any industrial establishments therein.

¶26

2/4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

WP(MD)Nos.14248 & 14249 of 2010

¶29

Therefore, the petitioners were served with notices in the year 2017, to show cause as to why the allotment orders should not be cancelled, for non-utilization of the plots. The petitioners have challenged the said notices before this Court in WP.(MD)Nos.11152 & 11153 of 2017 and the same is still pending.

¶30

4.In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the opinion that nothing survives for further adjudication in these writ petitions, since the petitioners have now paid the plot costs, pursuant to the interim directions. With regard to the show cause notices issued in the year 2017 for not utilizing the plots right from the allotment, since cognizance has already been taken by this Court in WP(MD)Nos.11152 & 11153 of 2017, it is for the parties to agitate the same in the said writ petitions.

¶31

Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Index : Yes / No 07.04.2022 Internet : Yes dsk/gk

¶33

¶34

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., (TANSIDCO) Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 032.

¶35

3/4

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

WP(MD)Nos.14248 & 14249 of 2010

¶38

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶39

¶40

2.The Branch Manager / Estate Officer, TANSIDCO, Kappalur, Madurai – 8.

¶41

W.P.(MD)Nos.14248 & 14249 of 2010

¶42

07.04.2022

¶43

4/4

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A. Nihila, v. the Chairman and the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Nihila, v. the Chairman and the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Packia John Bright Vs the Senate of Serampore -

Microttrol Sterlization Vs the Union of India, through

Somasundar, Vs the Tahsildar

Karuppaiah, S/O. Muniasamy, Vs the District Collector

Ponnazhagu, Vs the District Collector

M/S. Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity