Allowed

M/S.India Pistons Ltd. v. the Commissioner/ Director

Madras HC26 Jun 2023WP/576/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order directing a petitioner to hand over a college playground. The court directed the college to notify its usage requirements in advance monthly, granting priority to college students, while allowing the petitioner to use remaining days for pro bono activities without monetary gain.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.11.2019 set aside. Petitioner directed to give priority usage to respondent college on dates notified in advance; petitioner to use remaining days for non-commercial pro bono a

M/S.India Pistons Ltd. Vs the Commissioner/… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.677 & 679 of 2020 & W.M.P.No.2269 of 2022

¶8

M/s.India Pistons Limited, Represented by CS Baburaj, Senior Executive, aged 35 years, Huzur Gardens Sembiam, Chennai-600 011. . . . Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner/Director, Directorate of Technical Education (DoTE) 53, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.

¶11

The Principal, Central Polytechnic College, Taramani, Chennai-600 113 . . . Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to the issuance of the Letter No.10559/D1/2013 dated 30.10.2019 and the consequential letters in Letter No.10559/D1/2013 dated 25.11.2019, Letter No.10559/D1/2013 dated 23.12.2019 and quash the same and forbear the

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶16

respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and developmental activities at the ground within the Central Polytechnic College campus.

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Vijayamehanathan for AAV partners For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, the

¶20

petitioner is before this court.

¶21

The petitioner/Indian Pistons Limited (in short 'IPL') is one

¶22

of the oldest and largest producers of Pistons, Piston Rings and allied components in India. It is the case of the petitioner that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 18.10.1995 was entered into between the petitioner/IPL and the 2^nd respondent, the Central Polytechnic College valid for a period of 15 years from the date of agreement. Based on the said agreement and the approval granted by the 1^st respondent vide letter dated 25.04.1995, IPL has developed the ground which is annexed to the 2^nd respondent with good infrastructures at a cost of Rs.650 Lacs. The said

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶26

ground was utilized by the players of IPL as well as the students of the 2^nd respondent for sports activities.

¶27

Subsequently, a MoU was entered into between the petitioner

¶28

and the 2^nd respondent was renewed for another period of 15 years from 18.10.2010 till 17.10.2025. While so, the 2^nd respondent had unilaterally passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 directing the petitioner to hand over the playground to the 2^nd respondent, alleging that the said ground is being utilized for commercial purpose and the tennis court has been constructed without obtaining prior permission from the 2^nd respondent. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations raised by the 2^nd respondent is with regard to violations of the terms of the MoU entered into between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent as to the construction of Tennis court cannot be put against the petitioner as the petitioner has already obtained prior approval before constructing the tennis

¶30

court and the proof has also been placed before this Court to that effect. Further, the petitioner has every right to carry out such developmental

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶34

works in the playground in terms of the MoU which would expire only in the year 2025. Hence, the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent is without any basis and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶35

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

¶36

respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the main grievance of the respondents is that the petitioner is not allowing the students of the 2^nd respondent and they are not given the first priority to utilize the playground and that it is being utilized for the commercial gains which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the MoU.

¶37

This Court gave anxious consideration to the contentions

¶38

advanced on either side as also the materials available on record.

¶39

It is not in dispute that a MoU was entered into between the

¶40

petitioner and the 2^nd respondent in and by which the petitioner had developed playground by putting in labour and money. The main grievance expressed by the 2^nd respondent is that it is not given priority for use of the

¶41

said playground and that the ground is being let for outsiders for use and

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶45

that without any proper approval a Tennis Court has been constructed.

¶46

Insofar as the construction of tennis court is concerned, the

¶47

relevant papers with regard to the approval obtained for putting up the tennis court is placed before this Court. It is to be stressed that both the parties to the lis are governed by the terms of the MoU and merely to the asking, it is not open to either party to cancel the MoU as it would cause detriment to the other party. It is to be pointed out that while the MoU provides for priority use for the 2^nd respondent, equally it is to be pointed out that the petitioner could not use the ground for commercial purposes as it is guided by the terms of the MoU and could use it only for pro bono activities, which does not involve any monetary consideration.

¶48

When the issue was put before the petitioner, the petitioner has fairly filed an undertaking that priority will be given to the 2^nd respondent in utilisation of the ground and during the period when the ground is not utilized by the 2^nd respondent, the same would be utilized by the petitioner for pro bono activities which does not involve any passing of monetary consideration for the use of the said ground. In such view of the matter, this

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶52

Court directs that the 2^nd respondent shall place its requirement as to the use of the ground on a monthly basis in advance to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on notice with regard to its requirement and on such dates, the 2^nd respondent would get priority to the use of the ground. As for the other days, when the ground is not required by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner shall utilise the ground for the purpose of performing pro bono activities which does not involve monetary consideration.

¶53

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent

¶54

is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶55

26.06.2023

¶56

NHS

¶57

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.576 of 2020

¶61

¶62

1.The Commissioner/Director, Directorate of Technical Education (DoTE) 53, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.

¶63

The Principal, Central Polytechnic College, Taramani, Chennai-600 113

¶64

¶65

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

W.P.No.576 of 2020

M.DHANDAPANI, J

NHS

W.P.No.576 of 2020

26.06.2023

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

¶72

M/S.India Pistons Ltd. v. the Commissioner/ Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.India Pistons Ltd. v. the Commissioner/ Director

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

N.Peer Nawab Khan Vs Thiru.S.K.Prabakar,Ias.

606 Thirumangalam Housing Board Residential Welfare Employees Association Vs Thiru Saravanavelraj,Ias.

A.v.Tamilvanan, Vs The Secretary

K.Praveen Kumar Vs The Secretary to Government

Ivr Hotels and Resorts Private Limited Vs the Adjudicating Officer

K.Vivekanandan Vs The Govt of Tamil Nadu