S.Krishnaveni, v. Chairman-Cum- Managing Director,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. Nos.12799, 12801 and 12803 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos.15818, 15820 and 15822 of 2020 S. Krishnaveni ...
Petitioner in W.P. No.12799 of 2020 B. Sooriya Prakash ...
Petitioner in W.P. No.12801 of 2020 R. Rajkumar ...
Petitioner in W.P. No.12803 of 2020 vs.
1. Chairman - cum Managing Director, SIDCO Corporate Office Building, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
2. The Branch Manager, (SIDCO), Branch Office, Cuddalore - 607 001, Cuddalore District.
3.G. Chidambaram
4. R. Anandagopal
5. D. Aravind
6. Manimaran ...
Respondents 1/6
Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to allot one developed plot on outright purchase in SIDCO Industrial Estates at Vridhachalam at an appropriate value by considering the petitioner's applications dated 14.10.2019, 15.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 respectively.
For petitioner in all W.P.s : Mr. D. Baskar For respondents in all W.P.s: Mr.A. Prabhakaran for SIDCO for R1 & R2 Mr.V.C. Janardhanan for Mr.P.V. Sudhakar for R5 Mr.V. Sivalingam for R6 COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions, are one and the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.
2. The case of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they have submitted applications for allotment of developed plots for outright purchase in SIDCO Industrial Estate, along with necessary processing fee on 14/15/16.10.2019. It is averred that subsequently an interview was conducted on 23.10.2019 for 11 persons. Later, the petitioners came to know under Right to Information Act that as per the recommendations of 2/6
the Screening Committee of the official respondents, 10 applicants were selected and out of the said applicants, 4 persons, who are the private respondents were selected by LOT on 13.02.2020 and allotment orders on rental basis were also issued to them. Thus, the respondents have not passed any orders for outright purchase in respect of the said plots. Since, the petitioners applications seeking for allotment of developed plots for outright purchase were not considered by the official respondents, till date, they have filed these writ petitions with the aforesaid prayer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court may issue direction to the 1st respondent to consider the applications of the petitioners seeking for allotment of developed plots for outright purchase and pass appropriate orders in the above regard.
4. Reiterating the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that as on date, there are no plots available for allotting the same to petitioners by way of outright purchase and 4 vacant plots were allotted to private respondents on rental basis under LOT system by the Members of the Screening Committee of the official respondents. Further, he submitted that 3/6
without challenging the allotment orders issued in favour of the private respondents, filing these writ petitions is illegal and hence these petitions are not maintainable. More so, he submitted that whenever vacancy arises, it would be notified in the official website of the respondents /TANSIDCO and the petitioners may apply afresh for allotment of the plots. In view of the above, he prays for dismissal of these writ petitions.
5. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners have submitted applications for allotment of developed plots for outright purchase in SIDCO Industrial Estate. A perusal of records reveals that as per the recommendations of the Members of the Screening Committee of TANSIDCO plots were allotted to private respondents, who were selected under LOT system. A bare reading of the counter affidavit, reveals that there are no vacant plots available as of now. Such being the position, the prayer sought for by the petitioners seeking for allotment of plots for outright purchase cannot be granted by this Court. Further, it is for the respondents to decide the manner in which the plots should be allotted and so long as there is no perversity, arbitrariness or illegality in the order of allotment, 4/6
any allotment made cannot be revisited by this Court. The present allotment on rental basis having been taken up under the LOT system, the said act of allotment of plots by the respondents cannot be found fault with.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to provide the details of the allotment made to the private respondents to the petitioner and if the petitioner has any grievance with the allotment made to the private respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the allotment made to the private respondents in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.06.2023 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2 To
1. The Chairman - cum Managing Director, SIDCO Corporate Office Building, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
5/6
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
vsi2
2. The Branch Manager, (SIDCO), Branch Office, Cuddalore - 607 001, Cuddalore District.
W.P. Nos.12799, 12801 and 12803 of 2020 09.06.2023 6/6