Madras High Court
C.S.Pitchai Pillai vs The Chairman on 8 June, 2012
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.06.2012 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.41928 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 C.S.Pitchai Pillai Prop. : M/s.Sheevaree Engineers, Vasanth Apartments, Plot No.4, II Floor, No.1, Krishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Petitioner vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai-600 005. .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the impugned order vide Sae.Mu.No.3370/E2/05 dated 04.04.2006 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to hand over possession of the unit/factory situated at No.48, C.I.Shed, Kamaraj Stree, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai 600 078 to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.CPG.Yoganand for M/s.CPG. Yoganand & Associates For Respondent : Mr.P.Jeganath Standing counsel for TNSCB ------- O R D E R
The petitioner has projected this Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the proceedings of the impugned order in Sae.Mu.No.3370/E2/05 dated 04.04.2006 passed by the respondent. Also the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction to the respondent to hand over possession of the unit/factory situated at No.48, C.I.Shed, Kamaraj Street, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
2.According to the petitioner, he is a lawful allottee of the unit/factory situated at No.48, C.I.Shed, Kamaraj Street, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai 600 078 allotted by the respondent through its order as per the proceedings in Va.Sae.Mu.Ka.No.13296/95/E2 dated 05.01.1999. Further more, the said unit/factory has been provided with electricity connection by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board with due consent of the respondent.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that he has been running the unit ever since the allotment of unit/factory has been made on 05.01.1999.
4.The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unit has been a successful one in its operations within a year of its inception and that the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., (NSIC) issued a modification to the Permanent Enlistment Certificate dated 23.09.1999 as per Permanent Enlistment Certificate dated 17.10.2000 in which the monetary limit for the unit has been increased to Rs.50 lakhs.
5.The plea of the petitioner is that during the successful run of the unit, it was hit with consecutive misfortunes, viz., in the form of compound wall adjourning the unit was demolished due to construction of Noon Meal Centre at the School building nearby. The petitioner was perforced to face perennial problems in regard to the security of the unit and also from the local residents because of the fact that the unit was located in predominantly slum area. The demolition of the compound wall, according to the petitioner was determent to the safety successful running of the unit.
6.Added further, in the petitioner's unit, there was a major theft. It is the contentions of the petitioner that he was running the unit regularly except for brief shut downs less than a week and also due to the above said enforcing problems beyond his control.
7.The Learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that suddenly the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 09.12.2004 from the respondent asking for the reasons in regard to the alleged closure of the unit, to which the petitioner sent his reply dated 14.02.2005, wherein he had clearly explained the factual position and sought permission or 'No objection' from the respondent for construction of a proper compound wall in the place of the demolished wall.
8.The petitioner sent another letter dated 29.06.2005 addressed to the Secretary of the Respondent/Board seeking permission as regards construction of a compound wall. The inordinate delay from the respondent's side in granting permission to construct the compound wall, worsen the matter for the petitioner in terms of security or running the unit. That being so, he was shocked to receive from the respondent a communication in proceedings No.Sae.Mu.No.3370/E2/05 dated 04.04.2006 cancelling the allotment of unit in his name.
9.The Learned counsel for the petitioner advancing his arguments contend that the impugned order of the respondent dated 04.04.2006 does not refer to a second letter dated 29.06.2005 and also, that in the impugned order it was mentioned as if the petitioner's unit was not running for the past 1 = years prior to the aforesaid letter and in fact, the petitioner in his letter dated 14.02.2005 had only made mention of the following:-
"There was perennial problem for the past 1 = years. Even with difficulty I was running the unit"
and as such the impugned order dated 04.04.2006 passed by the respondent is devoid on merits both in law and on facts.
10.The Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously projects his arguments that the petitioner bona-fide statement in the reply dated 14.02.2005 was mischievous and malicious interpreted by the respondent to suit his mala-fied interest. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.04.2006 passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside and promote substantial cause of justice.
11.Per contra, the Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondent/Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board contends that the petitioner was allotted the shed to run the Small Scale Industry in Kamaraj Street, M.G.R. Nagar Plan Scheme as per the proceedings of the Board bearing No. Va.Sae.Mu.Ka.No.13296/95/E2 dated 05.01.1999 and that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order, one of the conditions was that the respondent/Board had right to cancel the allotment without assigning the reasons if the Small Scale Industry allotted to run in their shed was not carried on continuously for three months.
12.The Learned Standing counsel for the respondent submits that the Respondent/Board came to know that the petitioner was not running his business and as such, a show cause notice dated 09.12.2004 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him as to why the allotment order should not be cancelled.
13.The Respondent/Board took the plea that the petitioner sent a reply dated 14.02.2005 mentioning that there was a labour problem for six months and there was also no boundary wall and there was a problem in running his business for 1 = years and requested the Board to grant him permission to construct a wall. On 29.06.2005, the petitioner made a similar representation to the respondent/Board.
14.The Respondent/Board deputed the concerned Divisional Engineer to inspect and submit a report as whether industry was running. A report dated 09.08.2005 was submitted to the Board after inspection of the petitioner's allotted shed in which the petitioner was granted permission to run a Small Scale Industry which was not run for several years. Subsequently, the Secretary and Personnel Officer of the Board has also made a personal inspection of the unit of the petitioner and on 22.02.2006 and a report was submitted to the effect that the unit of the petitioner was not run for several years.
15.The main argument of the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Board is that the petitioner was not running the Small Scale Industry in the shed allotted to him and he has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment order by keeping the shed closed for several years. Therefore, an order dated 04.04.2006 was issued by the Board to the petitioner cancelling the allotment. Later, the petitioner made a representation dated 12.04.2006 requesting the Respondent/Board to withdraw the cancellation order. The Board had rejected his request as per letter dated 02.05.2006 addressed to the petitioner.
16.In the allotment proceedings order of the respondent in Va.Sae.Mu.Ka.No.13296/95/E2 dated 05.01.1999, one of the conditions is that if the Small Scale Industry is closed for more than three months continuously, the allotment of the unit would be cancelled assigning without any reason. Moreover, it transpires from the allotment proceedings order of the respondent/Board dated 05.01.1999 that the shed allotted to the petitioner at Kamaraj Street, M.G.R. Nagar, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.2551/-. A cursory glance of the proceedings of the respondent/Board dated 05.01.1999 latently and patently indicates that the allotment of the shed to the petitioner is subject to certain conditions specified therein.
17.At this stage, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the monetary limit up to Rs.25 lakhs has been mentioned in the Permanent Enlistment Certificate of the National Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd., dated 23.09.1999 in respect of the petitioner and the said certificate is subject to review/renewal after further three years and the same is valid up to 22.09.2002 and on 17.10.2000, the National Small Scale Industries corporation in the Permanent Enlistment Certificate has mentioned the quantitative capacity per month as Rs.3,37,500/- and the same is valid up to 16.10.2003.
18.It is significant for this Court to make an useful reference to the reply furnished by the petitioner dated 14.02.2005 addressed to the respondent/Managing Director which inter-alia enjoins herein:
"Reference to your letter No.E2/4440/2004 dated 09.12.2004, I would like to inform you that the above shed has been run by me for over years and 6 months back, I had a problem with labour which was due to certain payment problems from my clients. Meanwhile, I requested you to kindly grant me permission to build the compound wall (This was demolished due to construction of Noon Meal School building nearby). Without a proper compound wall, there was perennial problem for the past 1 = years. Even with the difficulty, I was running the unit. I shall commence the work within a month and half on completion of compound wall. Your permission (NOC) will facilitate to run the unit."
19.Again on 29.06.2005, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Respondent/Board, wherein it has been mentioned thus:
"During the past few months, we could not operate this unit due to a major theft and collapse of compound wall from Corporation and Metro Water. We are going ahead with the construction of compound wall so as to commence the operation of the unit before 10.07.2005. In this connection, we request you to kindly issue us No Objection Certificate to carry out this work.'
20.The Learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that wrongly it is stated in the impugned order letter of the respondent dated 04.04.2006, that the unit of the petitioner has been closed for past 1 = years because of labour problem etc., and the respondent has incorrectly interpreted the letter of the petitioner dated 14.02.2005.
21.The substance of the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner in letter dated 14.02.2005 addressed to the Managing Director of the respondent had only mentioned inter-alia that "without a proper compound wall, there was a perennial problem and even with the difficulty, he was running the unit etc." and therefore, the plea of the respondent has mentioned in the proceedings of the Board dated 04.04.2006 that the petitioner had not operated the unit for 1 = years is far from reality.
22.Even in the letter of the petitioner dated 12.04.2006, the petitioner had mentioned in S.No.5 that they have the present unit to have all their base materials to facilitate the fabrication activities which cannot be executed without security protection. Also in S.No.6, letter of the petitioner dated 12.04.2006, it was mentioned that "We have no other way except to run this factory and eke out our living etc."
23.It is to be borne in mind that the allotment proceedings order of the respondent dated 05.01.1999 in respect of the petitioner's unit is itself subject to certain conditions and though the vehement plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been running the unit with difficulty and his industry/unit has not been closed for past 1 = years etc. has mentioned of in the communication of the petitioner dated 12.04.2006, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent/Board cancelled the allotment of the petitioner's unit after deputing the concerned Divisional Engineer to inspect and submit a report as to whether the industry was running.
24.Furthermore, it is categorically stated on behalf of the respondent, that a report dated 09.08.2005 was submitted to the Board after inspection of the petitioner's unit, the concerned Divisional Engineer had also reported that the shed in which the petitioner was running Small Scale Industry was not run for several years. That apart, the Secretary and Personnel Officer of the Board made a personal inspection on 22.12.2000 of the petitioner's unit and submitted a report mentioning that the shed in which the petitioner was granted the permission to run a Small Scale Industry was not running for several years.
25.Inasmuch as the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the allotment order dated 05.01.1999 of the respondent and especially, when clause (6) of the allotment order dated 05.01.1999, pointing out that the small scale industries was closed for more than three months, the same would be cancelled without assigning reasons, it is clear that the petitioner has violated the condition and only thereafter the respondent has issued the impugned order of cancellation dated 04.04.2006 which in the considered view of this Court does not suffer from any serious material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of Law. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails.
26.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
DP To
1.The Chairman, TNSCB, Kamaraj Salai, Chennai 600 005