Madras High Court
P.Vatchala vs The Managing Director on 11 August, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.4219
of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.4219 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.29532, 29528, 29533, 4816, 4819, 4820 of 2021
P.Vatchala ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
SIDCO,
SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2.M/s.Harish Industries,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.A.T.Arunagiri.
3.M/s.Balaji Garments,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.Harish A
4.M/s.Saradha Garments,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mrs.Saradha. A ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in RC
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 16
W.P.No.4219
of 2021
No.2779/IE2/2020-16, RC No.2779/IE2/2020-17 & RC No.2779/IE2-18,
dated 21.09.2020, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as
illegal, irregular and without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondent
to consider the application of the petitioner in Application No.4763.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mahomed for R1
Mr.S.Ravi for M/s.Gupta for RR2-R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the allotment order dated 21.09.2020, made in respect of land in the first respondent's Industrial Estate, Hosur bearing reference Nos.RC No.2779/IE2/2020-16, RC No.2779/IE2/2020-17 & RC No.2779/IE2-18, and further direct the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner in Application No.4763.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.9481 of 2015, after filing an application way back in 2011 for allotment of the subject land. It is submitted that the Writ Petition was disposed vide order dated 01.04.2015, at the time of ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 admission after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the official respondents herein with the following directions:-
“3. In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Copy shall be communicate to the petitioner”.
3. It is submitted that this order preceded a communication of the first respondent dated 12.12.2014, bearing reference No.RC.No.7755/IE-7/2015, wherein the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2014, was rejected stating that the request for allotment of the land cannot be considered, as the land is required for respondent's purpose (SIDCO purpose). It is submitted that apart from the petitioner another person Mr.Samvel Sathyan also made an attempt on 16.03.2018 and that request was also rejected by the first respondent by their communication dated 03.08.2018 bearing reference No.RC.No.1723/IE- 7/2018. It is submitted that the second respondent herein also made an attempt in the year 2019 [on 06.05.2019] and the request was rejected by the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 first respondent and the amount paid by the second respondent and the third respondent herein were refunded back by the first respondent by two separate communications both dated 27.06.2019. The reason was given as “non- vacancy”. It is submitted that the first respondent appears to have issued a general advertisement, dated 18.09.2019, which was widely published in various English and Tamil newspapers including in vernacular in different Districts of Tamil Nadu. In all the advertisements, the last date for submitting the application was given as 17.10.2019. It is submitted that the land in SIDCO Industrial Estate, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition was not in contemplation when the above paper publication was issued. It is submitted that during the height of Covid-19, when the entire country was under lock down, the first respondent has accepted an undated applications, which are now just sought to be justified as having been issued on 30th July 2020, pursuant to which the impugned allotments have been made in favour of the private respondents on 04.09.2020, by three different allotment orders.
4. It is further submitted that the allotment has been made only in favour ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 of the members of the same family and is sought to be justified by the private respondents as also official respondents by stating that the decision to sub- divide plot in survey No.72, measuring an extent of 1.64 acres lying on the southern side to NH area and northern side to TNHB area was taken only on 22.07.2020. It is submitted that there was no advertisement made giving wide publicity for the decision taken to allot the land in favour of the private respondents. That apart, it is submitted that the documents filed by the official respondent No.1 also indicates that as far as the subject land is concerned, only five different applications were received all from members of the same family, that is the second respondent/husband, third respondent/son, fourth respondent/wife and two other applications by the son-in-law and the daughter. It is submitted that it is nothing but a selective allotment taking advantage of the situation.
5. It is further submitted that the first respondent being a public body cannot act in a capricious manner to allot the land which was acquired by the government for being allotted for industrial purpose. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:-
i) New India and Public School & Ors., vs. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 HUDA & Ors., [(1996) 5 SCC 510],
ii) Sachidan and Pandey vs. State of W.B., [(1987 2 SCC 295],
iii) Divya Manufacturing and Anr., vs. Union Bank of India [(2000) 6 SCC 69];
v) Aggarwal & Modi Enterprises vs. New Delhi Municipal Council [(2007) 8 SCC 75],
vi) Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress vs. State of M.P, [(2011) 5 SCC 29],
6. The impugned decision allotting the land in favour of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents herein is defended both by the learned counsel for the first respondent and the private respondents herein.
7. The learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the original advertisement was made on 18.09.2019. It is submitted that in response to the same, the private respondents had filed an application and as and when the vacancy arose and after a decision was taken by the first respondent Board on 22.07.2020, the first respondent had uploaded the information relating to the subject land in their website and that the private respondents herein responded and filed their application on 30th of July 2020.
8. It is submitted that there is no impediment for the members of the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 same family to apply for the same land. It is further submitted that the applications as also the allotment were bonafide. That apart, it is submitted that a procedure is prescribed for allotment wherein antecedents and the financial capacity of the applicants were considered by the Screening Committee of the first respondent and after an interview through video conferencing held on 12.08.2020 the allotment was made to the private respondents herein.
9. It is further submitted that the private respondents have also invested in the land by paying 25% of the amounts out of their pocket as per the allotment order and for the balance amount they have taken loan from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) and that the private respondents are servicing the loan even though they have been restrained from putting up construction. It is further submitted that the allotments are in-line with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998 read with The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules 2000 made thereunder.
10. It is submitted that the private respondents are bonafide purchasers/investors. It is further submitted that the allotment contemplates ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 commencement of construction within six months and completion within a period of 18 months from the date of allotment and that within two years of the allotment, the industrial activities have to commence.
11. The learned counsel for the official respondent reiterates the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and reference to the documents filed by the first respondent herein. The learned counsel further submits that there is suppression of facts inasmuch as the petitioner's husband was allotted a land on outright basis in 1982 and that the said land has not been utilised for industrial purpose and has been sublet and that the said land was settled in favour of the petitioner. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner's husband has also taken another land on lease from TIIC and is a defaulter. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed all these facts and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. That apart, it is submitted that even if the application of the petitioner was scrutinized, it could have been rejected based on the past conduct of the petitioner and her husband.
12. The learned counsel for the official respondent further submits that there was no undue favourtism shown in favour of the private respondents as all the requirements of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 the rules made thereunder have been complied with. In particular, a reference was made to Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. It is submitted that as per Rule, the tender bulletin shall contain only information of the notice inviting tenders and the orders accepting a tender and it does not in itself create a legal right or liability. That apart, it is submitted that a notice inviting tender will not be invalidated merely on the grounds that the notice although published in one or the other of the District Tender Bulletins or State Tender Bulletin or when published in the State Tender Bulletin could not be published in a District Tender Bulletin or vice versa.
13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the official respondent and the private respondents.
14. The question that arise for consideration is whether the subsequent decision taken by the Board of the first respondent on 22.07.2020 would satisfy the requirements of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 read with The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000? and whether advertisement issued on 18.09.2019 can be said to cover the subject land. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 9 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021
15. The advertisement dated 18.09.2019, which appears to have been issued/published in various newspapers both English and in vernacular in circulation in various districts of Tamil Nadu make it clear that the last date for submitting application as 07.10.2019. At that point of time, the land which has been allotted in favour of the private respondents herein was not in contemplation. The decision which was taken on 22.07.2020, which is long after the advertisement on 18.09.2019. Extract of the decision taken on 22.07.2020 is reproduced below:-
“The Industrial Estate, Krishnagiri was transferred to SIDCO with gross extract of 41.69 acres and handed over on 01.06.1974 out of the above extent 3.92 acres of land as per Government Memo No.14758/SIE1/74-8 Industries dated 03.12.1974, was transferred to N.H. Department for formation of Bye Pass Road. Due to which (1.64+0.44) 2.08 acres of land in S.No.72 (part) Industrial Estate Kattiganapalli village, Krishnagiri was separated from Industrial Estate and lies on the other side of N.H. This land area was allotted to Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation and was surrendered back by them to SIDCO. Later, out of this 2.04 acres 0.44 acres of land was allotted to M/s.Poornima Silk twisting unit and sale deed has been executed. The remaining 1.64 acres of land in S.No.72 (Part) lies as vacant land, this land lying Southern Side to N.H. area and Northern Side to TNHB area.
To avoid trespassing and other illegal activities in the said land area, we have constructed hollow bricks compound wall to provide all around the 1.64 acres to ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 10 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 safe guard.
Hence, this file may be referred to General Manager (Technical) to offer his remarks and to divide the above said land into small sized plots for allotment to MSMEs since, the plot lying abutting to National Highways and could not be allotted to new entrepreneurs. Owing to the huge investment, the land may be divided into small sized plots, so as to allot the plots to new, micro, small entrepreneurs.
The 1.64 acres of vacant land at Industrial Estate Krishnagiri is located on National Highways Service Road. The total length of abutting road is 98.20 meters. It has been suggested that not to incur any additional development expenditure on this land and subdivided into 3 plots.
All the plots are located abutting National Highways Service Road, each plot having minimum plot width of 30.00 meters approach from National Highways Service road and plot area is not less than 0.50 acre each for better utilization and subdivided as detailed below.
Plot No.K1 - 0.513 Acre
Plot No.K2 - 0.627 Acre
Plot No.K3 - 0.500 Acre
Subdivision of plot sketch is enclosed. On approval we may apply for subdivision of plots in DTCP. In the mean time we can bring of above 3 plots in vacancy list and uploaded in the SIDCO web site for vide advertisement/publicity. It is only a salable area.
May be approved.
16. The records filed by the official respondent indicate the applications filed by the respective petitioners were received only on 30.07.2022. If the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 11 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 decision was taken only on 22.07.2020 plot the land, I fail to understand how applications could have been received earlier in terms of advertisement dated 18.09.2019. Further, it is clear that only five applications were received even as per the statement given by the official respondent in page 46 of their third typed set of papers on 18th July 2022, which reads as under:-
ABSTRACT LIST OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED ONLINE -CANDIDATES ATTENDING FOR SCREENING COMMITTEE ON 12.08.2020 SIDCO Branch Office, Krishnagiri – Krishnagiri Indl., Estate Total Applicant's (As per H.O., list) - 5 Absent - 0 Attending Krishnagiri Branch office - 5 _______ Total 5 _______
17. The five applicants who appear to have given the applications are:-
S.N Application Ref TR ID Company Name Applicant o No. Name 141 SIDCO/2020/4203 TR1049145918 M/s.Harish Industries – K3 A.T.Arunagiri
-0.513 acre land cost per acre-
49275100/-
142 SIDCO/2020/4087 TR1415937551 M/s.Balaji Garments – K1 Harish A
-0.627 acre ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 12 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 S.N Application Ref TR ID Company Name Applicant o No. Name land cost per acre-
49275100/-
147 SIDCO/2020/8224 TR1071280256 M/s.Saradha Garments – Saradha A K2
- 0.500 acre -
land cost per acre-
49275100/-
149 SIDCO/2020/5338 TR1714883108 M/s.Sri Krishna Industries- Nivetha A 0.513 acre land cost per acre – 49275100/-
156 SIDCO/2020/3340 TR71816842 M/s.SenthilKumar Poovarasan J Industries-
0.627 acre
land cost per acre-
49275100/-
18. All the applicants are members of the same family. It is a strange coincidence shows how the power has been abused by the first respondent.
The allotment that has been made in favour of the private respondents clearly indicate that a preferential allotment has been made in favour of the private respondents herein putting all the safeguards in the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 read with The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 to wind. The loan obtained by the private respondents from TIIC and servicing of the loan cannot present itself as a fait accompli, as the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 13 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 allotment itself is illegal and not bonafide and as a fait accompli every attempt has been made to denude the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. As a public authority, the first respondent should acted with more care in allotting the land instead of allotting the land in a preferential manner to the private respondents. The first respondent is a trustee of land acquired by the Government and cannot act like a private entrepreneur or owner dealing with it.
19. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the impugned allotments made in favour of the private respondents on 21.09.2020, by three separate allotment letters all dated 21.09.2020 are illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The official respondent is therefore called upon to refund the amount paid by the private respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is directed to auction the rights in these lands by strictly following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998, read with The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 made thereunder.
20. The Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 14 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
11.08.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order pbn ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 15 of 16 W.P.No.4219 of 2021 C.SARAVANAN, J.
pbn To The Managing Director, SIDCO, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
W.P.No.4219 of 2021
11.08.2022 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 16 of 16