IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.02.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.3913 of 2000 M/s.Krishnan Wood Works rep. by its Partner Dayalal K.Patel 46/4-A, Byepass Road, Ariyamangalam, Trichy – 620 010 ... Petitioner vs. 1. Tamilnadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Paulwel's Road, Kathipara Junction, Chennai – 600 016. 2. Tamilnadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Trichy Branch, rep. by its Branch Manager, Ariyamangalam, Trichy – 620 010. ... Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings made in Letter No.4630/IE-6/95 dated 11.05.98 by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to hand over possession of the plot bearing Nos.16 and 17 Thiruverambur Industrial Estate, Thiruverambur, Trichy without insisting on payment of enhanced cost. For Petitioner : Mr.C.B.Santhosh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramalingam, SIDCO - - - - - ORDER The petitioner, has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings made in Letter No.4630/IE-6/95 dated 11.05.98 by the first respondent and quash the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same and direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the plot bearing Nos.16 and 17, Thiruverambur Industrial Estate, Thiruverambur, Trichy without insisting on payment of enhanced cost. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner is carrying on business in manufacturing wooden furnichers, doors and also running saw-mills. The petitioner has made an application on 22.06.1995 to the first respondent for allotment of a developed plot in Thiruverambur Industrial Estate, Trichy and he has also remitted a sum of Rs.1000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit. Pursuant to the said application, the first respondent has passed an order on 06.06.1995 and allotted a vacant land in plot Nos.16 and 17 admeasuring an extent of 2.12 Acres in Thiruverambur Industrial Estate. The cost of the land was Rs.2,01,000/-. Apart from that, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,050/- towards service tax, at the rate of 5%. The total cost of the land with service tax was Rs.2,11,050/-. The allotment order was valid upto 03.06.1995 and the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount on or before 31.05.1996. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.2,11,050/- on 13.09.1995, in receipt No.96171 to the second respondent. 3. Thereafter, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 03.01.1996, directed the petitioner to produce six copies of building plan, SSI Certificate and financial tie-up letter from his Bankers. Accordingly, the petitioner has produced the relevant documents to the second respondent. On the strength of the allotment order, the petitioner also invested a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards purchase of machinery. Since the respondents have failed to hand over possession of the plots, the petitioner made several requests to the second respondent to hand over possession of the plot. In the meanwhile, the first respondent by his letter dated 11.05.1998 enhanced the cost of the plot from Rs.2,01,000 to Rs.7,55,400/- and correspondingly increased the service tax from 10,050 to 37,770/-. Altogether, the first respondent enhanced the cost of the plot to Rs.5,54,400/-. On the basis of the above said letter, the first respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,82,120 being the difference in Plot Cost on or before 20.06.1998, as a condition precedent to hand over the plot. In response to this, the petitioner has sent a letter dated 28.05.1998 requesting the respondents to cancel the revised price of the plot and also hand over the possession of the plot. However, by proceedings dated 21.12.1998, the first respondent refused to reduce the cost of the plot. Apprehending cancellation of the plot made in favour of the petitioner for non-payment of the final cost of the plot and aggrieved by the enhancement, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Assailing the impugned order, the petitioner has contended that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the first respondent has failed to give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before enhancing the cost of the plot after receiving the original cost of the plot, within the stipulated time prescribed in the allotment. He has further stated that he has no jurisdiction to enhance the cost of the plot. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has failed to consider that there is no specific provision in the allotment order dated 06.06.1995 to enhance the cost of the building. On the other hand, the cost of the building fixed by the respondents was valid only upto 30.06.1995. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit, have stated that originally the cost of the land was fixed at Rs.2,01,000/- and it is not a final cost. It is also the contention of the respondents that development charges are included in the cost of the land and therefore, the enhancement is justified. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. In similar circumstances, this Court had already tested the correctness of an order passed by the first respondent dated 08.01.1998, enhancing the land cost. The petitioner therein sought for a direction to quash the order of the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Development Corporation represented by its Branch Manager, Hari Mills, demanding enhanced land cost with service tax. On consideration of the rival submissions, by order dated 30.10.2006, in W.P.No.5346 of 1998 this Court has passed the following orders. "7. Now, the fact remains that the petitioner paid the amount as stated in the original order of allotment on or before 30.03.1996 along with interest and the respondents accepted the same. Even in the consequential order dated 18.09.1997, the second respondent referred to the order of the first respondent dated 28.03.1996 and required the petitioner to give an undertaking that he would pay the difference in costs of the shed, which is stated to be Rs.1,65,600/-. As already stated, since the petitioner is aggrieved by the demand made by the second respondent, they moved this Court and obtained an interim order, 8. The matter was argued on merits for some time. This court directed learned counsel for the respondents to get instructions as to what is the stage in which the matter stands now and whether the respondents are wiling to hand over possession, if the petitioner pays the differential amount with a reasonable interest. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated across the Bar after consultation that the respondents are willing to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accept the amount and hand over possession, as the property is still available with them in view of the pendency of the litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the increase in land cost now to several manifold, has agreed to pay Rs.1,65,600/- with 9% interest from 08.01.1998 till date of payment." 8. The facts in the present case and the issue decided by this Court in the above unreported judgment are similar and therefore, following the said order, the impugned order enhancing the cost of the plot and the demand made by the second respondent are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.05.1998 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jrl To 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamilnadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Paulwel's Road, Kathipara Junction, Chennai – 600 016. 2. The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Trichy Branch, Ariyamangalam, Trichy – 620 010. +1cc to Mr.S.Ramalingam, Advocate Sr 7364 +1cc to Mr.C.B.Santhosh Kumar, Advocate Sr 7154 GB (CO) km/12.6. W.P.No.3913 of 2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/