Madras High Court
Shanthi vs The Tamil Nadu Small Industries ... on 17 August, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9830 of 2023
Shanthi ... Appellant /Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Near SIDCO Electronics Complex,
Thiru.Vee.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032
2.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited,
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Pettai, Tirunelveli-627 010. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to
set aside the order, dated 09.01.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.2425 of 2021 on
the file of this Court.
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 09.01.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.2425 of 2021. By the said order, the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The appellant had filed the above writ petition challenging the order of the first
respondent dated 20.02.2020 thereby fixing the increased land cost. It is the
further prayer of the writ petitioner that the respondents have to refix the plot
value as per G.O.Ms.No.9, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (C)
Department dated 17.02.2009 and as per the cost mentioned in the
advertisement dated 18.09.2019.
2. Heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant. The learned counsel taking this Court through the Government
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
order in G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 17.02.2009 and the advertisement would submit
that when as per the advertisement, the land cost was fixed only at
Rs.10,44,500/-, there is no justification for the respondents to refix the same
at Rs.23,60,900/-. Therefore, he would submit that the entire exercise is
arbitrary and the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the order
of the respondents.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the material records of the case.
4. It can be seen that as far as the re-fixation of land cost is concerned,
the original G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 17.02.2009 has been further amended by
G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 19.06.2013 and thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.34, dated
18.10.2016. If the amended criteria are taken into account, the re-fixation has
to be done as per the Clause (iii) to (v) mentioned in the Government Order. It
is the categorical contention of the respondents that the cost is refixed only in
terms of the said Government Order. When the re-fixation has been done as
per the standing guidelines, there is no justification on the part of the
appellant. When the appellant has got no right whatsoever to compel the
respondents to allot the plot only for Rs.10,44,900/- and when after due
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
scrutiny and procedure the re-fixation has been done, no exception
whatsoever can be taken in respect of the findings of the learned Single Judge
and consequently dismissing the writ petition.
5. Finding no merits, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
17.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
W.A.(MD) No.1295 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9830 of 2023
17.08.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
