IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.1816 of 2001 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 M/s.Gee Yem Industries represented by its Managing Partner, Mrs.B.Gomathi, 13/91, CTO Colony, West Tambaram, Chennai- 600 045. ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Near SIDCO Electronics Complex, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 2.The Branch Manager, SIDCO Branch Office, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Chennai-600 044. ... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the order in RC No.4356/IE2C/2008, dated 12.01.2011 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider my application dated 06.02.2008 for approval of building plan and issue NOC for constructing the building for industry in Developed Plot No.225, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Chennai-600 044. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2.At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner could not construct the building in the plot allotted to the petitioner and commence production, as specified by the first respondent, for the reason that the 'No Objection Certificate' and the 'Building Plan Approval' could not be obtained because of the undue delay caused by the second respondent, even though the request for the grant of the 'No Objection Certificate' had been submitted, on 06.02.2008, with the prescribed fee. He had also submitted that the petitioner had paid the necessary penalty charges for the delay in the commencement of the production. 3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions of allotment of the Plot in question. Therefore, penalty charges had been levied on the petitioner. In spite of the extensions of time granted for the completion of the building and for the commencement of the production, the petitioner had not complied with the same. 4.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 12.01.2011. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as penalty, within fifteen days from today. On payment of the said amount, the first respondent shall issue the 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner, within fifteen days thereafter. The petitioner shall complete the building, within six months from the date of receipt of the 'No Objection Certificate' from the first respondent and the petitioner shall commence the production, within a further period of three months thereafter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. mps To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Near SIDCO Electronics Complex, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 2.The Branch Manager, SIDCO Branch Office, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Chennai 600 044