Madras High Court
S.David vs The Secretary To Government on 7 September, 2023
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1, 1 & 2 of 2015
W.P.(MD)No.8769 of 2015:
S.David ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Small Industrial Development
Corporation Limited,
Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate,
Near Electronic Complex,
Guindy, Chennai.
3.The Branch Manager,
Small Industries Development Corporation Limited,
Industrial Estate,
K.Pudur, Madurai.
4.The Estate Officer / Branch Manager,
Industrial Estate,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to
sell the Labour Tenement No. 39 Industrial Estate, Pettai, Tirunelveli as
per the G.O(Ms)No.128 Housing and Urban Development (S.C.3)
Department dated 24.03.1997.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader for R.1
Mr. T.Sakthikumaran
for R.2 to R.4
W.P.(MD)No.18271 of 2015:
Beer Mohamed ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Branch Manager,
SIDCO Branch Office,
Industrial Colony,
Ariyamangalam,
Trichy -10.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation,
Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 32. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/12
W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings dated 28.09.2015 in Se.Mu.Aa. No.
1195/D/13 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the
respondents to pass necessary orders to enable the petitioner to remit the
sale consideration of Rs.9,600/- and execute the sale deed for the old
tenement No.B1, SIDCO, Industrial Colony, Thiruvarambur, Trichy-14 in
favour of the petitioner as an outright sale and granting.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr. T.Sakthikumaran
COMMON ORDER
Thiru.S.David / the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8769 of 2015 is represented by his counsel. Thiru.Beer Mohamed / the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.18271 of 2015 is not represented by any counsel.
2. While S.David served as plumber in SIDCO, Beer Mohamed's father Mr.Jeyalani served as watchman. Both David as well as Jeyalani were allotted the respective petition mentioned premises on tenancy basis. Jeyalani is no more. Both David as well as Beer Mohamed have been served with eviction orders. While Beer Mohamed has questioned the eviction order, David has filed the writ petition as Writ of Mandamus. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 It is seen that the eviction order was issued on 27.04.2015. W.P(MD)No. 8769 of 2015 was filed on 30.04.2015. It is possible that after coming to know that the eviction order could be issued, David has come to this Court. In any event, I do not want to non-suit David on a technical ground. I can as well mould the prayer.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested this Court to treat W.P(MD)No.8769 of 2015 as questioning the eviction order. He reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition and grant relief as prayed for. The averments set out in the affidavit filed in W.P(MD)No.18271 of 2015 are also on the same lines.
4.The pointed contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that respective allottees failed to pay the lump sum amount as stipulated in G.O(Ms)No.128 Housing and Urban Development (S.C.3) Department dated 24.03.1977 in time. They have slept over their rights. Therefore, SIDCO was justified in issuing the impugned eviction orders under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. The petitioners are very much having the remedy https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 of appeal. The question of invoking writ jurisdiction straightaway does not arise at all.
5. The learned Standing Counsel placed considerable reliance on the order dated 27.09.2021 made in W.P.No.31097 of 2019 (Sreedevi & Others Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited & Others) etc batch. The Hon'ble Judge who disposed the writ petition granted liberty to the writ petitioner therein to approach the SIDCO authority and directed SIDCO authority to conduct enquiry. It was further held that SIDCO shall determine whether the petitioners have acquired the right to occupy the property or are entitled for the benefit of G.O(Ms)No.128 Housing and Urban Development (S.C.3) Department dated 24.03.1977. The learned Standing Counsel would call upon this Court to dispose of the present writ petitions on the same lines.
6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
7. In the order dated 27.09.2021 relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, there is no reference to the said order dated 09.01.2013 made in W.P.Nos.41586 to 41588 of 2002 (M.Abdul Shukeer & Others Vs The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 Chairman and Managing Director & Others) etc batch. The said writ petitions were filed by the allottees under the aforesaid Government Order. The writ petitions were allowed. SIDCO filed W.A.Nos.1693 to 1695 of 2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeals on 17.09.2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP Nos. 2401 to 2403 of 2014 on 17.02.2014. Since there is no reference to these orders, I am not inclined to follow the approach set out in the order dated 27.09.2021 in W.P.No.31097 of 2019 (Sreedevi & Others Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited & Others) etc batch. On the other hand, I had occasion to deal with the similar issue vide order dated 04.07.2023 in W.P(MD)No.768 of 2014 filed by one Murugesan. The said Murugesan worked as Scavenger in SIDCO. He retired in the year 2004. During his service, he was also allotted a labour tenement. Even after retirement, he continues to be in occupation. Following eviction notice, he filed the said writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed by me. I had relied on the order dated 09.01.2013 in W.P.No.41586 to 41588 of 2002. Paragraphs 10, 11& 12 of the said order read as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 I had also extracted the writ appeal order. The order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 17.09.2013 in W.A.Nos.1693 to 1695 of 2013 dismissing the writ appeals filed by SIDCO. The relevant portion is as follows:
“7.This Court, on consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the materials placed before it, is of the view that the point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents in the writ petition lacks merit. Even as per the own admission of the appellants, the respondents joined the services of the TANSIDCO as Maistry, Wireman and Welder respectively and it is also not in serious dispute that they are not workmen and therefore, the benevolent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable to them. The fact remains that the tenements occupied by the respondents were allotted in their favour and they had also paid the respective sale consideration and sale deeds alone shall be executed in their favour. The appellants, after getting clarification from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, had passed the impugned order cancelling the sale of tenements in their favour. In the considered opinion of the Court, since the respondents / writ petitioners come within the definition of workmen the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to them.
8. In the light of the above factual and legal position, this Court is of the view that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petitions and that there is no merit in the writ appeals. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed at the admission stage itself. The appellants are directed to execute sale deeds in favour of the respondents / writ petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015
8.After noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, I held that once a beneficial policy was floated by the authorities, the authorities must endeavor to ensure that the end-users are benefited and that they should not do a U-turn in the middle. In this case, the Government with certain noble objectives issued the aforesaid G.O(Ms)No.128 Housing and Urban Development (S.C.3) Department dated 24.03.1977. The Management must have counselled the allottees and ensured that the lump sum amount stipulated therein is paid. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that there was any demand on such lines from SIDCO. When similarly placed employees had been given allotment, it would not be fair to discriminate against the petitioners alone. In fact, the Government Order contemplates that even the legal heirs of retired or deceased employees can also claim the benefit. Paragraph 6 of the said order dated 04.07.2023 reads as follows:
“6. In this view of the matter, the impugned eviction notice is set aside. The respondents are directed to execute the sale deed conveying the petition mentioned property in favour of the petitioner. Of-course, it is open to the respondents to redetermine the sale https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 amount payable by the petitioner. This is because, as per G.O, a sum of Rs.9,600/- should have been paid in the year 1997 itself. While redetermining, it would not be open to the respondents to adopt an arbitrary approach in the case of the petitioner alone. Whatever treatment that was extended to similarly placed persons shall be extended to the petitioner also. A formal notice shall be issued by the respondents in this regard within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The present writ petitions are allowed on the same lines. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MGA
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015
2.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate, Near Electronic Complex, Guindy, Chennai.
3.The Branch Manager, Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai.
4.The Estate Officer / Branch Manager, Industrial Estate, Tirunelveli.
5.The Branch Manager, SIDCO Branch Office, Industrial Colony, Ariyamangalam, Trichy -10.
6.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation, Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 32.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
MGA W.P.(MD)Nos.8769 & 18271 of 2015 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1, 1 & 2 of 2015 07.09.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12