1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.390 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 M/s.Susee Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, J.Rajiv Subramanian 89/102, Theni Main Road, Madurai 625 016. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation, Head Office, Electronic Complex, Thiru Vi. Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 2.The General Manager (Ind & Com), District Industries Centre, Madurai. 3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation, SIDCO Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 007. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the application of the petitioner company dated 08.06.2007 for allotment of Plot No.H5, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Thirumangalam, Madurai 625 009 in accordance with law within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Prakash For Respondents : Mr.G.Mahesh Raja, Govt.Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.R.Janakiramulu for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R The petitioner is running an industry in the SIDCO Industrial Estate at Kappalur, Tirumangalam, Madurai. The neighbouring plot No.H5 in the same estate which was originally allotted to one Ms.Syed Rafeek & Company could not be finalised as there was a litigation for the said allotment and the actual amount fixed by the SIDCO was exorbitant. After the proceedings were finalised, the said allottee was not willing to take up the plot No.H5 at SIDCO Estate, Kappalur. The said plot is at present vacant. 2.It is the contention of the petitioner that being the neighbouring plot owner and he planned for industrial expansion, it was stated by him that under the seniority of allotment, his company’s claim is also pending and since Ms.Syed Rafeek & Company, was not willing and the petitioner is willing to pay the amount as notified, the same should be allotted to the petitioner. It is in that premises, the Writ petition came to be filed. 3.When the Writ petition came up for admission on 11.01.2011, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner was directed to take notice. Subsequently, further notice was ordered on 18.01.2011. Pending the notice, no interim order was granted by this Court. On notice from this Court, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. 4.The contention of the petitioner was that he has also made an applicant to the said plot and the respondents are maintaining a seniority list and as the particular allottee is not willing to take up the plot, it should be given to the person next in the waiting list and the petitioner is having an industrial expansion programme and he is willing to pay the cost of the plot and the same should be allotted to him. However, such a plea cannot be countenance by this Court, especially, when a public properties are sought to be transferred, it should be done only by way of public auction and there must be transparency in the procedure adopted by the respondents SIDCO. Only in the public auction and the bids were called for, the appropriate price can be fixed by the SIDCO and the revenue of the SIDCO cannot be diminished by any such private negotiations. 5.The contention that there was a seniority list and the petitioner was eligible were squarely denied in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit the procedure for allotment is set out and it is as follows: "6. ... As per the procedure in vogue, vacant plots/sheds shall be brought to the notice of the public through advertisement and the intending entrepreneurs shall have to apply in the prescribed application form along with copies of required documents before the time limit prescribed. The applications received shall be processed and all the eligible applicants shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 called to appear before the 'screening committee' which in turn recommends the applicant(s) for the approval of the Respondent-1. When there are more than one applicant for one plot, then selection of applicant shall be done by conducting 'lot' in the presence of the eligible applicants, representatives from the SSI associations besides officials from TIIC, Director of Industries and Commerce." 6.In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner’s prayer for grant of the plot No.H5 is misconceived and bereft of any legal reasoning. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation, Head Office, Electronic Complex, Thiru Vi. Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 2.The General Manager (Ind & Com), District Industries Centre, Madurai. 3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation, SIDCO Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 007. +1cc to Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Advocate Sr.No.37486 +1cc to Mr.Y.Prakash, Advocate Sr.No.37954 nbj ssk/16.11.2011 /6c-3p/- W.P.(MD)No.390 of 2011 01.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/