Dismissed

M/S.Kasiyananatha Cooking v. Tamilnadu Small Industries

Madras HC22 Sept 2023WP(MD)/10041/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court impleaded the Local Planning Authority. The Court directed the allotting authority to seek layout approval within two weeks and grant it within eight weeks. The petitioner was given six months from approval to construct; otherwise, the cancellation would stand. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Corporation to apply for layout approval within two weeks and get it approved within eight weeks. Granted six months from approval to construct; else cancellation stands.

M/S.Kasiyananatha Cooking Vs Tamilnadu Small Industries — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶7

M/s.Kasiyananatha Cooking Ranges Pvt. Ltd., Rep.By its Managing Director, A.Anantha Sekar.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.,

¶11

Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, SIDCO Coporoate Office, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶12

2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.,

¶13

SIDCO Coporoate Office, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶14

3.The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.,

¶15

Industrial Estate, Pettai, Tirunelveli 10.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015

¶19

4.The Member Secretary,, Local Planning Authority, Tirunelveli District. (R4 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.10041 of 2015 by GRSJ)

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in R.C.No.9505/IE-5/2011 dated 02.06.2015 cancelling the allotment of Plot No.15 at Pettai, Tirunelveli Industrial Estate made infavour of our company namely M/s.Kasiyanantha Cooking Ranges Private Limited and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner company namely M/s.Kasinantha Cooking Ranges Private Ltd.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Robinson

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthikumar for R1 to R3. Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Spl. Government Pleader for R4.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015

¶29

2.The petitioner was allotted Plot No.15 by TANSIDCO. The allotment was cancelled vide communication dated 02.06.2015. The reason for cancellation was that the petitioner had not put up construction in the allotted plot.

¶30

3.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not in a position to put up any construction because the lay out itself had not been approved. Therefore, I impleaded the Local Planning Authority as the fourth respondent. It is not in dispute that inspite of the efforts taken by TANSIDCO, the lay out could not be approved till date. It is only sometime back TANSIDCO obtained no objection certificate from Tirunelveli corporation. TANSIDCO is directed to submit an appropriate application for approval of the lay out to the fourth respondent. This shall be done by TANSIDCO within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since TANSIDCO is a Tamil Nadu Government undertaking, there should not be any difficulty for the fourth respondent to grant approval subject to fulfilment of the usual norms. Such approval will be issued by the fourth respondent within eight weeks after submission of application.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015

¶34

Once lay out approval is given, there should not be any difficulty to

¶35

comply with the allotment conditions by putting up construction. The petitioner is given six months time from the date of grant of lay out approval by the Planning Authority. If the petitioner completes the construction by then, the impugned order will stands quashed. If the petitioner fails to comply with the condition even then, the impugned order will stand.

¶36

4.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

22.09.2023

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶39

To:-

¶40

The Member Secretary,, Local Planning Authority, Tirunelveli District.

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015

¶47

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶48

ias

¶49

W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2015

¶50

22.09.2023

¶51

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

¶52

6/6

M/S.Kasiyananatha Cooking v. Tamilnadu Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kasiyananatha Cooking v. Tamilnadu Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.B.Balasubramaniam Vs The Secretary

Swamiji, Vs the Chief Secretary

M. Gobinathan, Vs the National Highways

Chinnamuthu @ R. Muthu, (Died) Vs the District Collector

R. Palaniammal, Vs the District Collector

M/S. Sri. Paulthai Lorry Vs the General Manager