Disposed

Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Dec 2023WP/16482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that SIPCOT's unilateral resumption of 48.78 acres of land from TAHDCO and allotment to private respondents was arbitrary and irregular, but did not disturb possession of private respondents who had developed units, directing instead that lease amounts be transferred to TAHDCO with interest and that the Government regularize the allotments and ensure employment for Adi Dravidars.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: (i) SIPCOT to transfer lease amounts with interest to TAHDCO within 30 days; (ii) lease value to be re-examined and difference paid by private respondents to TAHDCO; (iii) Governmen

Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 02.11.2022

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 11.12.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶7

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶8

and WMP.Nos.10225, 10226, 15767, 15770 to 15772 & 15774 of 2022

¶9

W.P.No.10536 of 2022

¶10

Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust (DSEDT),

¶11

rep.by Director, R.Parthiban ... Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶14

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶15

3.The Chief Financial Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department

¶16

Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶17

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

¶18

Page No. 1 of 51

¶19

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶20

4.The Hon'ble Minister,

¶21

Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶22

The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶23

The General Manager, (P-II) State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶24

7.The Project Officer, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd.SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center, R40, SIPCOT, Perundurai, Tamil Nadu 638 052.

¶25

The Chairperson, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶26

The Chairman,

¶27

Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development, Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶28

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶29

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

¶30

Page No. 2 of 51

¶31

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶32

The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶33

The General Manager-Administration, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶34

The General Manager-Technical Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶35

The Executive Engineer, Coimbatore Division, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶36

K.Manivasan

¶37

S.Mudhumathi

¶38

17.Vijayarani

¶39

18.K.Vivekanandan

¶40

19.T.Anand

¶41

20.H.Krishnanunni

¶42

21.H.Prabavathy

¶43

22.K.Alagupandian

¶44

23.R.Saraswathi

¶45

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

¶46

Page No. 3 of 51

¶47

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶48

M.Nisha

¶49

25.M/s.Best Corporation Private Limited, 2^nd Street, Avinashi-Trippur Road, Padmavathipuram, Tiruppur, Tamil nadu 641 603.

¶50

M/s.Valasumani Farm Machineries Private Limited, 42, Sivagari, Muthur Road, Erode, Tamil Nadu 638 109.

¶51

M/s.RBWovens Private Limited, 59, Raja Street, Sanjay Nagar, Narayanavalasu, Erode, Tamil Nadu 638 011.

¶52

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the respondents relating to the Order No.PO/SIP-P/TAHDCO/2022 dated 10.02.2022 passed by the 7^th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 14, to pass necessary orders allotting 150.35 Acres including the 200 sheds constructed in the SIPCOT land at INGUR Perundurai, Erode, for 99 years lease, for one time lease amount of Rs.3 Crores together with the loan of Rs.5 Crores for alteration/maintenance of the aforesaid 200 sheds, to the petitioner Trust.

¶53

For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Haribabu, & Mr.P.Munusamy

¶54

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

¶55

____________ Page No. 4 of 51_

¶56

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶57

For R1 to R5, R15 to R18 & R20 : Mr.S.Silambanan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.C.Sangamithirai For R6 & R7 & R19 & R21 : Mr.P.Wilson Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Karthikjeyan Spl.Govt.Pleader For R8 to R14, R22 to R24 : Mr.C.A.Ashok Kumar For R25 to R27 : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel

¶58

W.P.No.16482 of 2022

¶59

Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust (DSEDT), rep.by Director, R.Parthiban ... Petitioner

¶60

Vs.

¶61

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (SCP)Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶62

2.The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶63

3.The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶64

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

¶65

Page No. 5 of 51

¶66

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶67

4.The Project Officer,

¶68

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, R40, SIPCOIT, Perundurai, Tamil Nadu 638 052.

¶69

The Managing Director, Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶70

K.Manivasan

¶71

7.Vijayarani

¶72

8.K.Vivekanandan

¶73

K.Alagupandian

¶74

10.M/s.Best Corporation Private Limited,

¶75

2^nd Street, Avinashi-Trippur Road, Padmavathipuram, Tiruppur, Tamil nadu 641 603.

¶76

M/s.Valasumani Farm Machineries Private Limited,

¶77

42, Sivagari, Muthur Road, Erode, Tamil Nadu 638 109.

¶78

M/s.RBWovens Private Limited, 59, Raja Street, Sanjay Nagar, Narayanavalasu, Erode, Tamil Nadu 638 011. .. Respondents

¶79

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

¶80

____________ Page No. 6 of 51_

¶81

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶82

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶83

By this common order both these writ petitions are being disposed.

¶84

Both these Writ Petitions have been filed by the same person.

¶85

Relief sought for in these writ petitions, read as under:-

¶86

TABLE - 1

¶87

W.P.No.10536 of 2022 (filed on W.P.No.16482 of 2022 (filed on 22.04.2022) 27.06.2022)

¶88

For the issuance of a Writ of For the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Order the records relating to the allotment No.PO/ SIP-P/ TAHDCO/ 2022 orders bearing No.P-I/SIGC-P/Best dated 10.02.2022 passed by the 7^th Corporation/2021, bearing Ref.No. Respondent and quash the same P-I/ SIGC-P/ Valasumani/2021, and consequently direct the bearing Ref.No.P-I/ SIGC-P/RB Respondents 1 to 14, to pass Woven/2021 dated 26.02.2021 for necessary Orders allotting 150.35 the total extent of 48.78 Acres of Acres including the 200 sheds land, issued by 4^th respondent in constructed in the SIPCOT land at favour of 10^th , 11^th & 12^th INGUR, Perundurai, Erode, for 99 Respondents respectively, years lease, for one time lease culminating into Lease Deeds amount of Rs.3 Crores together bearing Doc.Nos.2995 of 2021, 2996 with the loan of Rs.5 Crores for of 2021 & 2994 of 2021, SRO, alteration/maintenance of the Perundurai, all dated 22.04.2021, aforesaid 200 sheds, to the executed by 4^th Respondent Petitioner Trust.” pertaining to 10^th , 11^th & 12^th Respondents respectively, & the consequential letter (MS) No.10/SCP/2022 dated 02.03.2022

¶89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 51_

¶90

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶91

W.P.No.10536 of 2022(filed on 22.04.2022)	W.P.No.164 27.06.2022)	82 of 2022(filed on
	issued by quash the respondents land of an including th in the SIP Perundurai, with the Orders.”	the 1^strespondent and same and direct the 1 to 5 to lease out the extent of 150.35 Acres e 200 sheds constructed COT land at INGUR, Erode, in accordance applicable Government

¶92

The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 has been passed by the

¶93

7^th respondent in W.P.No.10536 of 2022/4^th Respondent in W.P.No.16482 of 2022, namely, The Project Officer, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited/, Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai.

¶94

The order dated 10.02.2022 impugned in W.P.No.10536 of

¶95

2O22 is addressed to the District Collector, Erode. The Impugned order

¶96

dated 10.02.2022 reads as follows:-

¶97

“With Reference to the 1^st Cited, we wish to inform that M/s.TAHDCO was allotted to an extent of 150.35 acres of land by erstwhile TACID as per G.O.Ms.No.58/AD & TW Department dated

¶98

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

¶99

Page No. 8 of 51

¶100

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶101

28.03.1995 at the rate (Land Acquisition Cost) of Rs.1.35 lakhs per acre on 99 years long lease basis for the purpose of knitwear based industrial units exclusively for the benefit of Adi Dravidars and remitted the entire land cost of Rs.203.00 lakhs on 05.04.1995.

¶102

Further, the site was handed over to M/s.TAHDCO on 08.02.2003. The lease agreement was not yet executed with us till now. Accordingly, M/s.TAHDCO constructed 200 Nos. of sheds having plinth area of 186 sq.m. to a size of 15.5m*12m (Photos enclosed).

¶103

However, M/s.TAHDCO already created a separate infrastructure inside the said Plot No.Q1 partially like internal roads, Construction of Overhead Tank (50,000 litres capacity), UG sump, 3 Nos. of borewells, connectivity pipeline to the bath rooms and toilets, etc. The entire value of the assets created for utility of industrial purpose in one part of the said plot was diluted due to non usage for more than 20 years.

¶104

At present, there is no industries functioning so far and the buildings are under damaged condition in all means due to non-utilisation of building.

¶105

In the above circumstances, the unutilised portion of 48.78 acres were taken possession by SIPCOT on 11.02.2021 and the same was allotted to three companies viz.,

¶106

M/s. Best Corporation Private Limited – Plot No.Q-4/22.36 acres*

¶107

M/s. Valasumani Farm Machines Private Limited – Plot No.Q-3/8.95 acres*

¶108

M/s. R B Wovens Private Limited – Plot No.Q2/17.38 acres*

¶109

This is for favour of kind information please.

¶110

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

¶111

Page No. 9 of 51

¶112

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶113

Encl.: As above. Yours faithfully Project Officer” (* private respondents in the respective writ petition)

¶114

In W.P.No.10536 of 2022, the petitioner has also prayed for a consequential direction to the official respondents No.1 to 14 to pass necessary orders for allotting 150.35 acres including 200 sheds constructed in the SIPCOT Industrial, Growth Centre at Ingur, Perundurai for a period of 99 years.

¶115

Writ petition against R1, R3, R4 & R15 to R24 in W.P.No.10536 of 2022 were dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2022 as the Respondent No.5 to 14 and 25 to 27 alone are the contesting respondents.

¶116

The petitioner has filed W.P.No.16482 of 2022 on 27.06.2022,

¶117

for a wider relief to call for the records relating to three separate allotment orders dated 26.02.2021 bearing reference P-I/SIGC-P/Best Corporation/2021, allotting an extent of 48.78 acres of land in favour of

¶118

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

¶119

Page No. 10 of 51

¶120

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶121

the private respondents namely the 10^th , 11^th and 12^th respondent in

¶122

W.P.No.16482 of 2022 who are the 25^th , 26^th & 27^th respondent in W.P.No.10536 of 2022.

¶123

Impugned letters dated 26.02.2021 impugned in W.P.No.16482

¶124

of 2022 is in respect of three different allotment letters issued to the respective private respondent allotting lands to them together with conditions stipulated therein.

¶125

As the prayer in W.P.No.16482 of 2022 reference to 22.04.2021

¶126

pertains to three lease deeds executed by the Project Officer of SIPCOT in favour of the private respondents namely, the 10^th , 11^th and 12^th respondent in W.P.No.16482 of 2022 who are the 25^th , 26^th & 27^th respondents in W.P.No.10536 of 2022.

¶127

By the aforesaid letter, the Principal Secretary to Adi Dravidar

¶128

Welfare Department has directed the SIPCOT to release the necessary

¶129

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

¶130

____________ Page No. 11 of 51_

¶131

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶132

funds for refund of the lease amount for 48.78 acres of land at Ingur,

¶133

Perundurai out of 1.85 out of allotted to vacant.

¶134

Post facto, by letter dated 02.03.2022, bearing reference: Letter (Ms).No.10/SCP/2022, the Principal Secretary to Government, has requested the District Collector to take necessary action to refund the lease amount for 48.78 acres of land in Ingur, Perudurai out of 150.35 acres to TAHDCO immediately.” Relevant portion of the order reads as

¶135

under:-

¶136

“ I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited and to stated that in the reference 1^st cited, G.O.(Ms).No.165 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 15.07.1992, orders were issued for the formulation of a scheme by TAHDCO for establishing two knit wear based Industrial Estates exclusively for the benefit of Adi Dravidars one each at Mudalipalayam, Coimbatore District and another at Ingur in Erode District for creation of a class of enterpreneurs among the Scheduled Castes.

¶137

2. In the reference 2^nd cited G.O.(Ms).No.58, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 28.03.1995 orders were issued permitting the Managing Director, TAHDCO to take over the allotment of an extent of 150.35 acres of compact block of lands in S.No.2, 4 etc., in Ingur Village, Perundurai Taluk, Periyar District from TACID

¶138

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

¶139

Page No. 12 of 51

¶140

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶141

(now SIPCOT), Madras on lease-basis for a period of 99 years.

¶142

3. In the reference 3 cited, G.O.(Ms).No.59, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 28.03.1995, the Government sanction a sum of Rs.1600 lakhs initially from the Special Central Assistance funds available with TAHDCO for the construction of 200 hosiery units at the rate of Rs.8.00 lakhs per unit in Ingur Village, near Perundurai, Periyar District pending finalisation of units cost, pattern or financial assistance and selection of beneficiaries list. The above expenditure shall be adjusted from the project cost, later on.

¶143

4. In the letter 06.01.2021, the Managing Director, SIPCOT has stated that SIPCOT has cancelled the unutilized land measuring 48.78 acres at SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai, as per the sketch and the refund towards the probable extent of land cancelled shall be made as per the prevailing policy of SIPCOT, after adjustment of accrued dues.

¶144

5. In the reference 5^th cited, you have been requested to freeze the action of resuming back the land measuring 48.78 acres of land in Ingur, Perundurai till the final decision taken in the matter, as the matter could not be decided unilaterally and also the lease period has not been lapsed.

¶145

6. The above subject was placed in the 221^th Board of Directors of TAHDCO held on 23.09.2021 and board has decided to send a proposal to Government. Hence, Managing Director, TAHDCO has sent proposal to get either equal extent of land on lease from SIPCOT

¶146

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

¶147

Page No. 13 of 51

¶148

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶149

or to refund the lease amount by SIPCOT for the land resumed by them.

¶150

7. In this connection, after careful examination the Government has decided to request SIPCOT to refund the lease amount for the land resumed by them, as the lease period has not been lapsed.

¶151

8. I am therefore to request yu to take necessary action to refund the lease amount for 48.78 acres of land in Ingur, Perudurai out of 150.35 acres to TAHDCO immediately.”

¶152

Yours faithfully,

¶153

Principal Secretary to Government ”

¶154

Table below gives the details of the impugned allotment orders all dated 26.02.2021 of the Project Officer, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, SIPCOT, Industrial Growth Centre,

¶155

Perundurai, in 4^th respondent W.P.No.16482 of 2022 / the 7^th respondent in W.P.No.10536 of 2022. The total extent of land allotted in favour of the private respondents are continued below :-

¶156

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

¶157

Page No. 14 of 51

¶158

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶159

Resp

¶160

TABLE - 2

¶161

Respondent	in Writpet	itions Imp	ugn Be	aring	Total	Cost	of Consideratio
W.P.No.1 36/22	05 W.P.No 2/22	.1648 ed Allo nt Ord date	tme er d Re ce	feren :	Extent of land allotted in acres:	per acre	s n:
25^th Respondent	10^th Respondent	26.02.2021	P- I/SIGC	22.36	Rs.7,84,3	7,200	35,07,924.86
M/s.Best Pvt.Ltd.,	Corporation		-P/Best Corpor ation/2 021
26^th Respondent	11^th Respondent	26.02.2021	P- I/SIGC	9.00	3,15,78,8	00	35,08,555.55
M/s.Valasu Machines P	mani Farm vt.Ltd.,		- P/Vala sumani /2021
27^th Respondent	12^th Respondent	26.02.2021	P- I/SIGC	17.42 acres	6,11,72,4	56	35,11,622.00
M/s.R.B.W d.,	ovensPvt.Lt		-P/RB Woven /2021
			Total	48.78 acres

¶162

Land measuring an extent of 150.37 acres was originally allotted to the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation (herein after referred to as TAHDCO, for the sake of convenience), by the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Ltd. (TACID), under notification G.O.Ms.No.58, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated

¶163

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

¶164

Page No. 15 of 51

¶165

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶166

28.03.1995, at the rate (Land Acquisition Cost) of Rs.1.35 lakhs per acre

¶167

on 99 years long lease basis pursuant to G.O.(Ms.)No.165, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 15.07.1992.

¶168

The land was allotted to TAHDCO for the purpose of setting up a knitwear based industrial units exclusively for the benefit of person belonging to Adi Dravidar Community.

¶169

Entire cost of Rs.203.00 lakhs was also paid to TACID. The site was also handed over to TAHDCO. After the land was allotted to TAHDCO, TACID was amalgamated with the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) in 2003.

¶170

SIPCOT however, failed to execute a 99 year old lease deed in favour of TAHDCO, even though, entire lease consideration of Rs.203 Lakhs was received by TACID from the Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶171

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 16 of 51_

¶172

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶173

Over the land, TAHDCO had also reportedly constructed 200

¶174

sheds of plinth area of 186 sq.m. to a size of 15.5m * 12 m and had created further infrastructure inside each shed for the purpose of scheme.

¶175

Applications were to be processed by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) adopting the procedure that was being followed. While sanctioning loans to entrepreneurs, TIIC was to hold workshops/seminars, wherein applicants were to be invited and explained of the scheme.

¶176

There are no documents filed by the TAHDCO to show that any meaningful steps were taken to ensure that the scheme under the above mentioned notifications were implemented and were realized by training the entrepreneurs as was required under the notification.

¶177

The Government selected 26 candidates and 30 candidates

¶178

were selected and kept in waiting list. 200 Sheds that were constructed

¶179

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

¶180

Page No. 17 of 51

¶181

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶182

did not see any use due to lack of interest, reluctance on the part of

¶183

beneficiaries .

¶184

Later, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.75, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 06.09.2000, cancelled the selection of 26 applicants as they were not interested in commencing venture. The project however did not take off due to lack of awareness and various other factors including lack of resource among entrepreneurs from the members of the community for whom the scheme was targeted

¶185

G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department

¶186

dated 30.12.2002 was issued as per which even groups of men who formed a cohesive unit were to be encouraged to get the industrial sheds allotted. Relevant clause for encouraging Self Help Groups in G.O.Ms.No.110 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 3.12.2002 reads as under:-

¶187

“ Self Help Gropus:

¶188

The Government direct that while selecting the beneficiaries, Managing Director, TIIC should

¶189

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

¶190

Page No. 18 of 51

¶191

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶192

encourage Self Help Groups to undertake suitable projects based on their experience. Even groups of men who form a cohesive unit can also be encouraged.”

¶193

The Managing Director of TIIC was directed to ensure that the selection of 200 beneficiaries of the Ingur Industrial Estate and 46 beneficiaries for the Mudalipalayam Industrial Estate was to be taken up by TIIC based on the financial viability of the project, networth, expertise of the promoter, willingness and capability of the entrepreneurs to undertake commercially viable project.

¶194

The system of selection was through a Committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(Ms)No.21, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 01.02.1993 was superseded. After the selection of beneficiaries, TIIC was to get prior clearance of the Government for the list of the beneficiaries before sanctioning loan applications. Thus, multi pronged steps were taken to ensure that the projects reaches the beneficiaries.

¶195

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

¶196

____________ Page No. 19 of 51_

¶197

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶198

The petitioner appears to have filed application for allotment

¶199

of the sheds as a cohesive Self Help Groups/group of men in terms of G.O.Ms.No.110 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 3.12.2002. The Government also directed the Managing Director, TAHDCO to release advertisement calling for application through one English and one Tamil daily.

¶200

The petitioner appears to have sent several letters since 2009 to not only to the Respondent, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department (TAHDCO), Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) but also to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

¶201

By letter dated 29.09.2009, the Commissioner of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department in his communication to the Managing Director TAHDCO merely acknowledged the receipt of the application filed by the petitioner and informed that suitable steps will be taken by later.

¶202

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

¶203

____________ Page No. 20 of 51_

¶204

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶205

The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare

¶206

Department by letter dated 24.11.2009, forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Managing Director, TAHDCO forwarded the application and directed the Managing Director of TAHDCO to inform the petitioner about the steps being taken for allotting the RCC sheds to the petitioner out of 200 sheds built in Ingur in Perundurai Erode District. Relevant portion of letter dated 24.11.2009 of the Commissioner , Adi dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department addressed to the Managing Director,

¶207

TAHDCO reads as under:-

¶208

“ e/f/vz;/vr; 1/26730/09 ehs; : 24.11.2009

¶209

ma;ah.

¶210

bghUs; : Mjpjpuhtplh; eyk; - <nuhL khtl;lk; - bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh <';Th; jhl;nfh K:yk; fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw;Tl';fs; RCC Shed kw;Wk fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F ntz;Ljy; rk;ge;jkhf/

¶211

ghh;it : jpU/ ,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; B.E., L.L.B., ,af;Feh; jdgjp mk;khs; Rantiytha;g;g[ fy;tp kw;Wk; r\fnkk;ghl;L mwf;fl;lis mynkYg[uk;. tpGg;g[uk; khtl;lk;/

¶212

<nuhLkhtl;lk; bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh <';Th; jhl;nfh\yk; fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw; Tl';fs; RCC Shed kw;Wk fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F ntz;oaJ Fwpj;j kDit eltof;if vLf;Fk; bghUl;L ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ. nkw;go eltof;ifapd; tptuj;ij kDjhuUf;F bjhptpf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/

¶213

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

¶214

____________ Page No. 21 of 51_

¶215

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶216

Mjpjpuhtplh; ey MizaUf;fhf/”

¶217

Since the petitioner did not receive any positive feedback from

¶218

the Managing Director of TAHDCO, the petitioner has also approached the Chief Minister’s Cell. The Chief Minister’s Cell has also sent a reminder to the Office of the Managing Director of TAHDCO. Thus, by letter dated 21.12.2009, the Managing Director of the TAHDCO responded to the Chief Ministers Cell and stated as follows:-

¶219

“ f.vz;.vr; 5/2582/09 ehs; :21.12.2009

¶220

bgWeh;

¶221

jdpmYtyh;.

¶222

Kjyikr;rhpd; jdpgphpt[. g[dpj $hh;$; njhl;il.

¶223

– brd;id 9.

¶224

Iah.

¶225

bghUs; : <nuhL khtl;lk; - bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh- <';Th; - jhl;nfh \yk; fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw; Tl';fs; RCC Shed kw;Wk; fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F ntz;Ljy; Fwpj;J.

¶226

ghh;it : j dgjpmk;khs; Ra ntiytha;g;g[ fy;tp kw;Wk; r\fnkk;ghl;L mwf;fl;lis tpGg;g[uk; jpU.,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; mth;fspd; fojk; kw;Wk; Kjyikr;rhpd; jdpgphpt[ f/vz;.281422.ER/A91/09, ehs;: 23.10.2009

¶227

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

¶228

Page No. 22 of 51

¶229

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶230

ghh;itapy; fhqk; kDjhuh; jpU.,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; mth;fs; jkpHfj;jpy; cs;s midj;J Mjpjpuhtplh; khztpah; khzth;fs; eyd; kw;Wk; ntiyapy;yh gl;ljhhpfSf;F bjhHpy; Kidnthh; gapw;rp ikak; Muha;r;rpikak; bjhHpy; El;gk; kw;Wk; kUj;Jt fy;Yhhp ,ytr kUj;Jt nritikak; mikf;f <';Th; Tl';fs; kw;Wk; fhypapl';fs; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F tH';f nfhhpa[s;shh;/

¶231

muR Miz vz;.110d; go jkpH;ehL bjhHpy; KjyPl;L fHfj;jpd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspj;J muR Miz bgw;w gpwF bjhHpw; Tlk; xJf;fpj;ju Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf ntW epjp epWtd';fspd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gLk; gadhspfSf;F bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;f muR Mizapy; jpUj;jk; nfhhp jhl;nfhtpd; Kd; bkhHpt[ rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. jhl;nfhtpd; Kd; bkhHptpw;F murplkpUe;J Mizg; bgwg;gl;lJk; gadhsp nfhhpa bjhHpw;Tlk; rk;ke;jkhf Kot[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/

¶232

nkyhz;ik ,af;FeUf;fhf/”

¶233

It appears that a proposal was submitted before TAHDCO to

¶234

amend the Government Order to allot factories to the beneficiaries who could get loans from other financial institutions. It was informed that a decision will be taken once the order is received from the Government before TAHDCO, for Managing Director.

¶235

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

¶236

____________ Page No. 23 of 51_

¶237

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶238

Thus, it was informed that the request of the petitioner to get

¶239

loan from other Financial bodies was under consideration and suitable amendment will be made to G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002 after getting necessary permission of the Government. As late as, 27.12.2013, the petitioner had sent a letter to Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation (TAHDCO).

¶240

It appears that the petitioner thereafter did not follow with the respondent and assumed that G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 30.12.2002 will be amended and industrial shed will be allotted to the petitioner.

¶241

Meanwhile, the Project Director, SIPCOT has however decided

¶242

to allot the land to measuring a total extent of 48.78 acres out of 150.35 acres in favour of the private respondents, even though, the land for all practical purpose was under the control of TAHDCO although a Lease Deed was never executed in favour of TAHDCO either by SIPCOT’s or its predecessor namely TACID.

¶243

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

¶244

____________ Page No. 24 of 51_

¶245

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶246

Thus, the possession of 48.78 acres out of 150.35 acres of land

¶247

is said to have been resumed by SIPCOT on 11.2.2021 and handed over

¶248

to the private respondents.

¶249

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that letter dated 02.03.2022 of the Principal Secretary to Government, the content of which has been extracted above cannot authorize to take over of the land by SIPCOT, as a Government Order can be modified only by another Government Order. The said letter of the Principal Secretary to Government dated 02.03.2022 post facto cannot modify a Government Orders. Land allotted to TAHDCO cannot be allotted to the private respondents

¶250

In this connection, a reference is made to the decision of this

¶251

Court rendered in the following two cases:-

¶252

i. TAHDCO Contractors Association Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, W.P.No.4314 of 2010 dated 15.09.2010;

¶253

ii. K.Sampath Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , W.P.(MD).No.4921 of 2006.

¶254

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

¶255

____________ Page No. 25 of 51_

¶256

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶257

That apart, it is submitted that the Government has also not filed any counter. It is not for an officer of TAHDCO, to explain the studied silence of the Government by stating that the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation, TAHDCO, was authorized to file affidavit on behalf of the Principal Secretary to Government, the Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and the individuals R6, R7, R8 & R9.

¶258

It is submitted that the Government also cannot rely on the counter filed by the SIPCOT. It is further submitted that the petitioner has locus standi to question the allotment made in favour of the private respondents.

¶259

Merely because deponent has been blacklisted as the

¶260

contractor , ipso facto will not mean that irregular resumption of land and irregular allotment of land in favour of the private respondents can be ignored.

¶261

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

¶262

____________ Page No. 26 of 51_

¶263

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶264

The argument that the petitioner and the deponent who has filed these writ petitions are different cannot be accepted as the Trust has been constituted by the members of the same family which is given the deponent wide powers.

¶265

Merely, because the petitioner is a registered Trust and is meant to espouse the interest of downtrodden and persons from marginalized section of the society, particularly those belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community, appears ipso facto mean that the petitioners intentions are not bonafide.

¶266

Whether the petitioner can act as a catalyst for ensuring the objectives of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.165, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 15.07.1992, G.O.Ms.No.21, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.02.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 30.12.2002 are acted upon is highly debatable as the petitioner’s managing trustee does not have a clean and unblemished track record.

¶267

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 27 of 51_

¶268

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶269

Merely because 83 beneficiaries who were identified failed to

¶270

live up to the expectation of the Government which led to resulted in cancellation of allotment of sheds ipso facto would not mean that the project has to be abandoned and that the land earmarked for the welfare of persons belonging to Adi Dravidar Community can be given away to private entrepreneurs/industrial units.

¶271

By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 30.12.2002, the restriction of economic activity in the industrial shed to knitwear was removed and was expanded to include of types of unit that were financially viable and potentially viable. However, it did not permit allotment of land to the private respondents taking away the benefit welfare scheme.

¶272

There was no transparency in the allotment of land in favour

¶273

of the private respondent herein. Straight away, applications of the private respondent were accepted and allotment were made out of turn. It shows undue alacrity to making out of turn allotment.

¶274

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

¶275

____________ Page No. 28 of 51_

¶276

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶277

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed

¶278

reliance on the following decisions:

¶279

i. M/s.Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and Another , (1975) 1 SCC 70;

¶280

ii. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others , (1979) 3 SCC 489;

¶281

iii. Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others , (1985) 4 SCC 417;

¶282

iv. K.I.Shephard and Others Vs. Union of India and Others , (1987) 4 SCC 431;

¶283

v. Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India , (1994) 6 SCC 651; vi. Asia Foundation and Construction Limited Vs. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Limited and Others , (1997) 2 SCC 738;

¶284

vi. Union of India and Another Vs . International Trading Co. and Another , (2003) 5 SCC 437;

¶285

vii. Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Airports Authority of India and Others , (2006) 10 SCC;

¶286

viii. Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others ; (2010) 13 SCC 427;

¶287

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 29 of 51_

¶288

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶289

ix. Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others , (2014) 14 SCC 731;

¶290

x. Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others ; (2014) 9 SCC 105;

¶291

xi. State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and Others ; 1995 SUPP (4) SCC 469;

¶292

xii. Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited and Others , (1999) 1 SCC 492;

¶293

xiii. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited Vs . Girja Shankar Pand and Others , (2001) 1 SCC 182;

¶294

xiv. Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others , (2001) 6 SCC 534;

¶295

xv. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 370;

¶296

xvi. Kannaiyan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , 2004 (4) MLJ 651;

¶297

xvii. Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others Vs. Union of India and Others , (2012) 3 SCC 1;

¶298

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 30 of 51_

¶299

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶300

xviii. Uflex Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others , (2022) 1 SCC 165;

¶301

xix. Shobha Suresh Jumani Vs. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property and Another , (2001) 5 SCC 755;

¶302

xx. R.P.Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Others , (2005) 10 SCC 244;

¶303

xxi. K.Sampath Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others , MANU/TN/9958/2006;

¶304

The submission of Mr.S.Silambanan, learned AAG adopting the counter affidavit of TAHDCO, in W.P.No.16482 of 2022 and drew attention to paragraph 13. Paragraph 13 reads as follows:-

¶305

“13. A regards the averments made in Paragraph 15 and 20 of the affidavit, it is submitted, the petitioner Trust, addressed a representation dated: 20.10.2009, replied by TAHDCO that MuR Miz vz;/110d; go jkpH;ehL bjhHpy; KjyPl;L fHfj;jpd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspj;J muR Miz bgw;w gpwF bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;fpw;fhd Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf ntW epjp epWtd';fspd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gLk; gadhspfSf;F bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;f murhizapy; jpUj;jk;

¶306

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

¶307

Page No. 31 of 51

¶308

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶309

nfhhp jhl;nfhtpy; Kd;bkhHptpw;F murplkpUe;J Miz bgwg;gl;l gpd; gadhsp nfhhpa bjhHpw;Tlk; rk;ke;jkhf Kot[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/”

¶310

The learned Senior Counsel for the SIPCOT would submit that

¶311

there were no representation by the petitioner after initial representation in 2013. The petitioner Trust appears to be unaware about the allotment to 83 beneficiaries and their subsequent cancellation. It is submitted that Selection Committee consisting of 9 members was constituted by the Government to chose the eligible allottees. Allotment was made to 83 beneficiaries vide G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 28.6.2002. G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 28.6.2002 was later cancelled vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 13.3.2020 as there was no interest from beneficiaries.

¶312

The learned counsel Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, reiterated the

¶313

submissions and submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi is not relevant for the reasons already submitted.

¶314

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 32 of 51_

¶315

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶316

It is submitted that the Managing Trustee, K.Dhanapathyammal

¶317

died in the year 2019 and Mrs.R.Ananthayee died around 5 years ago while Mrs.Mallika resigned in the year 2010.

¶318

He drew attention to paragraph 15 of the Common Counter Affidavit of Best Corporation Private Limited” in W.P.No.10536 & 16482 of 2022. Paragraph 15 of the Common Counter Affidavit reads as follows:

¶319

“ It is submitted that the above two speculative Writ Petitions filed by the Trust represented by its Director, does not seem to be bonafide and genuine for the following reasons:

¶320

a) The Trust was formed on 28.08.2009 with one Founder/Chairman, one Managing Trustee and five Trustees.

¶321

b) Clause IX (a) of the Trust Deed Status that All the executive powers of the Trust shall vest with the Management Trustee and he shall be the authority to use and to be sued on behalf of the Board of Trustee. Hence, the above Writ Petitions filed by the Trust represented by someone claiming to be a Director, is contrary to conditions of the Trust Deed.

¶322

c) In the Affidavit in support of the above

¶323

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

¶324

Page No. 33 of 51

¶325

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶326

Writ Petitions, the deponent states that Founder Trustee K.Dhanapathyammal died in the year 2019, R.Ananthayee died 5 years ago, Mallika and Anjalai resigned in the year 2010, but went on to claim that he was appointed as a Director under resolution dated 02.09.2009 (Pg.No.267 in the paper book of W.P.No.16482/2022) signed by P.Saraswathi, A.Rajalakshmi and B.Abirami. It may be pertinent to note that on the date of resolution i.e., 02.09.2009 which was said to have been passed within 4 days from the formation of the Trust, was signed by only two trustees while A.Rajalakshmi was not a trustee at all.

¶327

d) The Trust Deed does not state that the same has been formed solely for the welfare of Adi Dravidar Community or for the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste. But it states that the Trust is for the up-liftment of the weaker section in the society irrespective of creed or religion and providing them systematically education and foster social, economic, cultural and educational growth.

¶328

It is submitted that the above facts demonstrate that the above Writ Petitions have been filed by the Trust represented by its Director, is to get a direction from this Hon’ble Court for allotment of the entire industrial plots in 150.35 Acres with 200 industrial sheds etc., to it in the guise of Trust.”

¶329

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 34 of 51_

¶330

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶331

It is therefore submitted that only three Trustees were there,

¶332

namely Mrs.P.Saraswathi, Mrs.V.Abirami and Mrs.A.Rajeshwari. They have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and Another , (2008) 2 SCC 280 wherein it was held that Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

¶333

“ 11. The principles on which a Writ of Mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G.Ferris, Jr.:

¶334

“ Note 187. Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction,

¶335

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

¶336

____________ Page No. 35 of 51_

¶337

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶338

requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.

¶339

Note 192 - Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty.

¶340

Note 196 - Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on

¶341

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 36 of 51_

¶342

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶343

one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.

¶344

Note 206 - The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action.”

¶345

12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj SathramdasLalvani v. N.M.Shah, Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar this Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh Case, SCC pp.152-53)

¶346

“ 15. There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a

¶347

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 37 of 51_

¶348

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶349

case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same.”

¶350

Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ of compel the performance of some statutory duty case upon the

¶351

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 38 of 51_

¶352

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶353

authorities. The respondents have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the appellant Bank to declare their account as NPA from 31.03.2000 and apply RBI Guidelines to their case.”

¶354

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. I have also perused the Government orders and the documents filed along with these two writ petitions.

¶355

Unilateral resumption of land measuring an extent of 48.78 Acres out of 150.35 Acres of land allotted to the TAHDCO by the SIPCOT and allotment 48.78 Acres of the land to the private respondents is arbitrary and in excess of the powers vested with the SIPCOT.

¶356

The argument that no reason has been stated in the affidavit as to why the petitioner Trust was in-active for 8 years in pursuing with the Government for allotment of land is not relevant.

¶357

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

¶358

____________ Page No. 39 of 51_

¶359

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶360

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for SIPCOT that

¶361

the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment, although correct, cannot be ignored at the same time.

¶362

Even, if the petitioner lacked locus standi , the Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eyes as the irregular allotment of the lands in favour of the private respondents were made which are arbitrary and are therefore liable to be declared to be irregular.

¶363

Even if the petitioner lacks the locus standi, the Court cannot close its eyes to irregularity committed by the officials of SIPCOIT and the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department allotting the lands to the private respondents without following the due proper procedure. Irregular allotment of land also do not justify the action of the SIPCOT.

¶364

These allotment of the land in favour of the private respondents is also contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

¶365

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

¶366

Page No. 40 of 51

¶367

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶368

Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.

¶369

Interview conducted by the Selection Committee on basis online application smacks of arbitrariness. Post facto , approval for cancellation and resumption of land by SIPCOT and payment of the lease amount for the resumed portion of the land is not sufficient.

¶370

The allotment of land should have also involved a public

¶371

auction by calling for a tender ensuring public participation so that the best price could have been fixed.

¶372

There are also no records to show that proper advertisements

¶373

were made in the by SIPCOT before receiving applications from the private respondents.

¶374

Further, SIPCOT has taken advantage of its own breach in not executing the lease deed in favour of TAHDCO after having received entire lease consideration from the Government after the land was

¶375

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

¶376

Page No. 41 of 51

¶377

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶378

28.03.1995.

¶379

allotted to TAHDCO under G.O.Ms.No.58 /AD & TW Department dated 28.03.1995.

¶380

The fact that the vacant land was being used as a playground,

¶381

grazing lands for cattle by the villagers, as pathway and that there was also a small temple present in the said land did not justify resumption and allotment of 48.78 acres of land to the private respondents.

¶382

Merely, because there is a huge demand for lands business

¶383

person for setting up and establishing industries was not a sufficient reason to make irregular allotment.

¶384

Proper procedure ought to have been followed by SIPCOT

¶385

before even venture to resume the land from TAHDCO and in allotting it to the private respondents.

¶386

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

¶387

____________ Page No. 42 of 51_

¶388

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶389

The fact that no Lease Deed was executed between SIPCOT and TAHDCO, as TAHDCO wanted outright sale of the plot which was not agreeable to SIPCOT is also irrelevant. One mistake will not justify

¶390

another mistake.

¶391

Post facto , letter of SIPCOT informing the allotment and

¶392

execution of lease in favor of the private respondents is also highly arbitrary and is to be frowned upon.

¶393

The resumption of land to an extent of 48.78 Acres and their allotment and further execution of lease deed in favour of the private respondents by SIPCOT were irregular as scarce resource viz land meant for achieving the laudatory objects of part IV of the Constitution of India has been sacrificed on the altar in favour of the private respondents and allotted in favour of the private respondents in an irregular fashion.

¶394

Therefore, resumption of land without a proper Government

¶395

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

¶396

Page No. 43 of 51

¶397

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶398

Order cancellation of previous Government Orders and allotment of land in favour of the private respondents are liable to be declared as irregular.

¶399

Arbitrary decisions have been by SIPCOT with the Officials of

¶400

the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department to process applications from the private respondents across the table to allot 48.78 acres of land out of 150.35 acres of land from the Ingur Industrial park to the private respondents was clearly without following proper procedure.

¶401

A proper procedure for resumption of land by SIPCOT should

¶402

have first preceded by a prior Government Order recalling, the earlier Government Orders under which the land was allotted to TAHDCO.

¶403

However, the fact remains that the purpose for which the land

¶404

measuring an extent of 150.35 acres was allotted to TAHDCO in the year 1995 had not been achieved as the project never took off for which various Government Orders were issued.

¶405

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

¶406

____________ Page No. 44 of 51_

¶407

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶408

The private respondents have put up their units/factories by

¶409

investing in the infrastructure. To ask these private respondents to vacate the premises would mean imposing a incalculable harm on them for the mistakes of the concerned officers from the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and SIPCOT.

¶410

To ask the private respondents to vacate and demolish the

¶411

factory would also mean loss of natural resources utilized in developing therm. Court cannot order such drastic measures.

¶412

Therefore,48.78 acres of land out of 150.35 acres of land

¶413

allotted to the private respondents herein cannot be disturbed.

¶414

Therefore, to balance the interest of the parties, Court is not

¶415

inclined to disturb the possession of the land and their utilization by the private respondents as they have developed units/infrastructure pursuant to the impugned allotment letters on the land measuring at 48.78 acres out of 150.37 acres.

¶416

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

¶417

____________ Page No. 45 of 51_

¶418

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶419

Therefore, the following orders are passed:-

¶420

i)The amount received towards lease deed from the private respondents by SIPCOT is directed to be transferred together with interest at bank rate within a period of 30 days from today to TAHDCO.

¶421

ii) The value of lease adopted in favour of the private respondents shall be re-examined and revisited and the difference in the market value of the land that prevailed in 2021 shall be paid to TAHDCO by the private respondents.

¶422

iii) The private respondents shall pay the difference directly to the TAHDCO.

¶423

iv) The amount of lease to be transferred and deposited to TAHDCO by SIPCOT and to be paid by the private respondents shall be utilized for the welfare activities to be under taken by

¶424

TAHDCO.

¶425

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

¶426

Page No. 46 of 51

¶427

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶428

v) The Government shall issue suitable notification

¶429

for regularizing allotment the land to the extent of 48.78 acres of land in favour of the private respondents by the TAHDCO and regularize the commercial activity of the private respondents ensuring that the private rights of the private respondents are not compromised except to the extent specified herein. Petitioner request for allotment of existing infrastructure may be considered by suitably amending G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002.

¶430

vi) The Government may issue suitable Government

¶431

Orders to ensure employment opportunities are created in the land used by these private parties in favour of the persons belonging to the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Community for whose benefit the land was allotted to TAHDCO way back in the year 1993 vide G.O.(MS)No.21,

¶432

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

¶433

Page No. 47 of 51

¶434

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶435

Adi Aravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 01.02.1993.

¶436

vii) This exercise shall be carried out by the Government as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶437

These writ petitions stand disposed of with the above directions.

¶438

11.12.2023

¶439

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kkd Note : Registry is directed to return the original files to the learned counsel for SIPCOT Issue Order copy on 19.01.2024

¶440

¶441

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,

¶442

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

¶443

____________ Page No. 48 of 51_

¶444

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶445

Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶446

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶447

3.The Chief Financial Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶448

4.The Hon'ble Minister,

¶449

Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶450

The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶451

The General Manager, (P-II) State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶452

7.The Project Officer, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd.SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center, R40, SIPCOT, Perundurai, Tamil Nadu 638 052.

¶453

The Chairperson,

¶454

Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶455

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development,

¶456

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

¶457

Page No. 49 of 51

¶458

W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022

¶459

Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶460

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶461

The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶462

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶463

kkd

¶464

The General Manager-Administration, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶465

The General Manager-Technical Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶466

The Executive Engineer, Coimbatore Division, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶467

15.The Managing Director,

¶468

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

¶469

Page No. 50 of 51

Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Kanagaraju Vs Kannapiran

M/s.Tamilnadu Water Investment Company Limited Vs M/s.Periyapalayem Common Effluent Treatment Plant Pvt. Ltd.

Kunfras Engineering Constructions Company Vs M/s.Hdb Financial Services Limited

Siddhi Agency Vs Shriram City Union Finance Limited

M/s.Mercedes - Benz Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Varadaraja Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. and another

M/s.Gimpex Private Limited, Previously M/s.Gimpex Limited, Rep.by its Director Mr.Binod Choudhury Vs M/s.Aanchal Cement Ltd.