for the petitioner is that when the tender has been called for, to realise the assets of the liquidated Society and the Liquidator acting under special law, the question of seeking permission from the Government does not arise at all. Thirdly, it is also submitted that no reason whatsoever given by the second respondent in the impugned order for cancellation of tender. Fourthly, it is submitted that the cancellation is against the decision of the Division bench of this Court. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has held that cancellation of tender in the absence of any explanation to justify the order of cancellation is violation in the eye of law. It is further submitted that in the counter statement, new reason has been assigned stating that as the subject land is required for industrial development, the Government decided to allot it to the SIDCO. Whereas, SIDCO is in fact is not agreed for the purchase of the subject land since no industrial development could be done in the said land as the same has been classified as primary residential zone by the Corporation. The learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 3465 [A.R.SAFIULLAH & ANOTHER VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, NANDANAM, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER].
