Madras High Court
The Director vs T.Venkatesan on 22 September, 2021
W.A.No.469 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A.No.469 of 2021
1.The Director,
Department of Industries,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Director,
Deaprtment of Industries and Commerce,
Chemical Industries Wing,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3.The Commissioner,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
District Industries Zone,
Cuddalore District. ... Appellants
vs
1.T.Venkatesan
2.The General Manager (Administration),
Tamil Nadu Small Industries,
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Near SIDCO Electronics Complex,
Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.No.469 of 2021
Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the
final order dated 24.10.2013, made in W.P.No.8758 of 2013.
****
For Appellants : Mr.D.Ravichander
State Government Counsel
For R1 : No Appearance
R2 : Given up
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana.J., )
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge made in W.P.No.8758 of 2013 dated 24.10.2013.
2.Despite notice served on the first respondent/writ petitioner, there
is no representation for him either in person or through counsel.
3.The issue relates to the industrial shed No.C2, situated in Ceramic
Industrial Estate, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore. The first respondent, who is the
writ petitioner had sought for issuance of mandamus, to direct the appellants
herein to allot the above referred shed No.C2, based on his representation dated
20.09.2012. The said writ petition was resisted by the Government by filing a
counter affidavit through Joint Director of Industries and Commerce
(Chemical) contending that the writ petitioner was originally allotted two sheds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.469 of 2021
at Government Industrial Estate for Ceramics, for a period of 10 years and he
was a chronic defaulter. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to Paragraph
No.13 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the Writ Petition, which
reads as under:
“13.It is submitted that 4 sheds have become vacant
have been since taken possession by the Department from the
defaulter for not paying rent to Government. Many
entrepreneurs, individuals are requesting to allot the existing
vacant four sheds in the Government Industrial Estate for
Ceramics, Vridhachalam. Some of the differently abled persons,
women entrepreneurs are also requesting for allotment of sheds.
Further for the existing four vacant sheds already about 30
persons have requested for allotment of sheds. If the
advertisment is made for allotment of vacant sheds huge number
of applications are expected. The ratio of vacant sheds to the
number of applications is expected to increae further many fold.
At present there are no detailed guidelines/procedure to follow
for allotment of vacant sheds. In order to formulate the
guidelines/procedure for allotment of vacant sheds at
Government Industrial Estate, Vridhachalam a Departmental
Committe was constituted and the Committee after detailed
examination suggested the procedure to ensure the transparent
method of allotment of sheds and also to avoid revenue loss to
the Government, since Government finds very difficult to collect
rent from the entrepreneurs (now Rental dues mounted upto
Rs.42.00 lakhs) to whom 58 sheds were already allotted by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.469 of 2021
interview method prior to 2001. Hence proposal has been sent to
Government vide letter dated 09.11.2012 for approval of
procedure/guidelines to be followed for allotment of vacant
sheds at Government Industrial Estate for Ceramics,
Vridhachalam.“
4.However, the Writ Court had allowed the Writ Petition, directing
the appellants herein to consider the representation of the first respondent, in
the event of clearing the entire amount of arrears.
5.Aggrieved by the said order, the Government has preferred the
present Writ Appeal.
6.As the Government had already formed a Committee, which has
suggested the procedure to ensure the transparent method of allotment of sheds
and also to avoid revenue loss to the Government, it was decided to give it in a
public auction.
7. In view of the above, it is argued by the learned State Government
counsel appearing for the appellants that the writ petitioner cannot be allotted
the sheds straight away, nevertheless, it is open to him to take part in the
auction subject to the condition that he deposits the entire arrears of rent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.469 of 2021
8.The learned State Government Counsel placed reliance on a
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Purushothaman
vs. Pondicherry Industrial Promotion and Development and Investment
Corporation Limited reported in 2019 2CTC 463. The relevant portion of the
order is extracted hereunder:
“24. Insofar as the impugned Order dismissing
the Writ Petition is concerned, the learned Judge has
taken note of the factual aspects and recorded a finding
that he is continuously defaulting and on account of the
same the Respondent/Corporation is not in a position to
grant any other concession as per the terms and
conditions of the Loan and that he has not entitled to any
indulgence from this Court.
25. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Counsel for the Respondent/Corporation the period of
default commenced in the year 2012 and despite a lapse
of six (6) years the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is unable to
clear the dues in its entirety and very many attempts have
been made to stall the Recovery proceedings in the form
of litigation, which ended in failure.
26. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, in
fact, wants this Court to issue positive direction to the
Respondent/Corporation to accede to their request for
One Time Settlement or at least re-scheduling the Loan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.469 of 2021
27. The grant of Loan was based upon the
Contract/Agreement entered into between the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner and the Respondent and in
exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India this
Court, cannot reschedule Loan and cannot re-write the
terms of Contract and issue a positive direction for re-
scheduling the Loan. The Respondent/Corporation had
shown enough indulgence, but the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner was unable to take advantage of the same.
9. In view of the above decision, the writ petitioner cannot be allotted
the sheds straight away. However, it is open to him to take part in the auction
subject to the condition that he deposits the entire arrears of rent. Hence, the
order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.8758 of 2013, is
set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
22.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
rst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.469 of 2021
To:
The General Manager (Administration),
Tamil Nadu Small Industries,
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Near SIDCO Electronics Complex,
Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.469 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
rst
W.A.No.469 of 2021
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
