S.K.Sureshkumar v. The Project Officer Sidco
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2026 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P.No.8430 of 2026 1.S.K.Sureshkumar 2.Bhagavathy 3.Neela 4.Malathi ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Project Officer, SIDCO, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2.The Branch Manager, SIDCO Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
3.The Commissioner of Corporation, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, EVR Periyar High Road, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
4.The Executive Engineer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, Guindy, Chennai.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the 3rd and 4th respondents from any manner interfering with the business of the petitioners in Shop Nos.2, 5, 1 & 10 respectively, situated at Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai except strictly in accordance with law.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Vijay For Respondents: Ms.Siddhara Sarangan 1/12
for Ms.Shakheena Abdul Gafoor [R1 & R2] Mr.E.C.Ramesh [R3 & R4]
ORDER
The petitioners claim to be the allottees of commercial shop establishments leased out by the respondents 1 and 2. The allotment was made in favour of the predecessors of the writ petitioners. The petitioners state that they have secured the necessary trade licences from the local body / 3rd respondent and have been eking their living. They claim that they are paying rents regularly.
2. The cause of action for the present writ petition is that on 21.02.2026, the respondents 1 to 4 started demolishing the shops situated within the SIDCO Industrial Estate. The petitioners herein state that the action of the respondents might deprive them of their living. They submitted that the Corporation Officials who are assisting respondents 1 and 2 to evict the occupants, had held out to the petitioners that they will remove the superstructure, as well as, the materials placed therein, in case the petitioners do not vacate and hand over the possession.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, I heard Mr.B.Vijay for the petitioners and Ms.Siddhara Sarangan for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.E.C.Ramesh for the respondents 3 and 4.
2/12
4. A perusal of the orders of allotment issued to the predecessors of the writ petitioners on 09.12.1993, 02.02.1994, 18.03.1994 and 25.06.1994 points out that what was permitted to be installed were bunk shops. Insofar as the allotment dated 18.03.1994 and 25.06.1994 are concerned, the allotment was issued to run a mobile cool drinks bunk. The photographs, which the petitioners themselves have enclosed in the typed set of papers, at page Nos.54 to 56 show that instead of running bunk shops, the petitioners have expanded their occupation by encroaching upon the lands belonging to SIDCO. In addition, they have put up concrete structures, in the place of, permitted bunk shops.
5. I pointed out to Mr.B.Vijay that such course of action as resorted to by the petitioners is contrary to all the four letter of allotments, which specifically state that no superstructure should be put up and no power connection should be availed.
6. Ms.Siddhara Sarangan filed a counter affidavit. She pointed out that the respondents 1 and 2 have handed over the maintenance of road, and street lights in its Industrial Estate situated in Ambattur and Guindy to the Greater Chennai Corporation for a period of 30 years from 06.02.2026. Prior to handing over, the SIDCO Officials had conducted inspection of the area and found that the petitioners have encroached upon the SIDCO land by putting 3/12
up a construction and, thereby, replacing the bunk shops with concrete structures. She stated that several Show Cause Notices had been issued to the writ petitioners and they did not take the notices seriously. Finally, a notice was issued on 16.12.2025, calling upon the petitioners to rectify the situation, failing which they were informed that the allotment letters itself would be cancelled. She stated that demolition work had been carried out with respect to the encroachments that had been made on the road, but SIDCO had not demolished the permanent structures with respect to the petitioners' Petty Shops bearing Nos.1, 2, 5 and 10.
7. Mr.E.C.Ramesh pleaded that the Corporation Officials are merely assisting the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments on the road and they have not taken any action independent of the directions given by the respondents 1 and 2.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records.
9. The petitioners are allottees of commercial shop establishments with respect to a certain lands as licensees for running bunk shops. As time went by, like the famous sheik and camel tale, the petitioners started encroaching upon the lands belonging to SIDCO. They did not confine themselves to the 4/12
area of allotment. In addition, they had also, in utter violation of the allotment order, put up superstructures. They have also secured electricity connections. The benevolent allotment made by the respondents 1 and 2 has been taken undue advantage of by the petitioners.
10. Ms.Siddhara Sarangan, on instructions from the Officials who are present in Court, states that it is not the intention of SIDCO to throw the petitioners out of the Estate and deprive them of their living. She states that the intention of SIDCO is to ensure that the petitioners remain within the four corners of the area allotted to them and do not encroach upon the public road.
11. Mr.B.Vijay pleaded that all the petitioners are poor and the mistakes committed by the them may be condoned, as SIDCO itself, is not taking a tough stand against them.
12. As long as the structure and form of the temporary bunk shops are maintained intact, SIDCO does not have any issue. As on today, the bunk shop do not exist. There are concrete structures in its place. Hence, I do not find any mistake in the action initiated by SIDCO in demolishing the superstructure raised in contravention to the orders of allotment.
13. Yet, since SIDCO is continuing its benevolent attitude towards the 5/12
petitioners, I called upon the petitioners to file an undertaking affidavit, that they will remove the concrete structures and replace them with a bunk shop in terms of the allotment, and will remain within the area demarcated by SIDCO.
14. Mr.B.Vijay has filed undertaking affidavit which is scanned and extracted hereunder:- 6/12
7/12
8/12
9/12
15. Ms.Shakheena Abdul Gafoor representing Ms.Siddhara Sarangan states that SIDCO has completed the identification and demarcation of the area in which the petitioners can place their bunk shops and continue to do their business. She states that the copies of the inspection report and demarcation report will be served on the petitioners by today. In addition, Ms.Shakheena will ensure that the copy of the report will be served to Mr.B.Vijay by the end of day.
16. The petitioners are granted time till 13.03.2026 to dismantle the superstructure and replace it with the bunk shops and that too, within the area identified by SIDCO. In case the petitioners do not comply with the aforesaid directions, on or before 13.03.2026, the respondents are free to proceed further and remove the encroachments.
17. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes : Yes / No ssn 10/12
To 1.The Project Officer, SIDCO, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2.The Branch Manager, SIDCO Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
3.The Commissioner of Corporation, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, EVR Periyar High Road, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
4.The Executive Engineer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, Guindy, Chennai.
11/12
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J., ssn and W.M.P.No.8430 of 2026 26.02.2026 12/12