Wire and Wire Products Vs The Tamil Nadu Small Industries

The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Near SIDCO Electronics Complex, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶12

Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14210 of 2025, dated 20.08.2025.

¶14

_______________ Page 1 of 5_

¶15

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

¶16

W.A.No.3605 of 2025

¶17

For Appellant(s): Mr.V.Jaishankar

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶20

Challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on the submission that the learned Single Judge recorded an erroneous finding that the appellant violated the terms and conditions of Clauses (6) and (7) of the allotment order.

¶21

He would submit that, in the petition, it was categorically averred that due to delay on the part of the statutory authorities in processing the appellant’s application for building permission, it was unable to generate finance to start construction of the factory.

¶22

Clause (6) of the allotment order, as interpreted by the learned Single Judge, to our mind, does not warrant any interference because the learned Single Judge, proceeding on admitted factual premise of the case, has recorded a finding that the construction was required to be commenced within a period of

¶23

_______________ Page 2 of 5_

¶24

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

¶25

W.A.No.3605 of 2025

¶26

six months from the date of taking possession of the plot, and, as it goes without saying, after obtaining necessary NOCs, permits, etc.

¶27

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant admits that all statutory permits, permissions, NOCs were granted up to 31.12.2009. Applying the terms of Clause (6) of the allotment order, the appellant was required to commence construction within six months and complete within 18 months. In the affidavit filed before the writ court, there is no averment in this regard, but the appellant has only expressed its own inability to arrange for finances, so as to commence and complete the construction within a stipulated period.

¶28

One of the basis to refuse grant of discretionary relief by the writ court is violation of Clause (6) of the allotment order. Once that finding does not warrant interference, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction in an intra-court appeal, we are not required to look into other grounds.

¶29

The writ appeal is “sans-substratum” and is, accordingly,

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.No.3605 of 2025

¶33

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.

¶34

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 05.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶35

To:

¶36

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Near SIDCO Electronics Complex, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶37

_______________ Page 4 of 5_

¶38

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

¶39

W.A.No.3605 of 2025

¶40

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

¶41

(sasi)

¶42

W.A.No.3605 of 2025