AND MP.NOs.1 and 2 of 2007 v. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.09.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.24478 of 2007AND MP.NOs.1 and 2 of 2007K.K.Rasappan...PetitionerVs.1. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Post Box No.7223, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.2. The Project Officer, SIPCOT Complex, Perundurai, Erode District.3. K.Natarajan ..RespondentsFor Petitioner : Mr.Silambannan, Senior Counsel for M/s S.Silambannan AssociatesFor Respondents: Mr.M.Devraj (R1 & R2) Mr.Habibullah Basha, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.D.S.Philip (R3) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying forthe issuance of a writ of declaration to declare plot CML-15 inPerundurai, SIPCOT Industrial Park to extent of 1 acre in favour of the 3rdrespondent on 29.05.2007, the consequential lease agreement entered andregistered between SIPCOT and the 3rd respondent without resorting topublic auction for such allotment is arbitrary and illegal and violativeof public policy and policy of State Industrial Promotion Corporation ofTamil Nadu Limited, and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 toresort to public auction for allotment CML-15 and any other plot forcommercial activity for weigh bridge in Perundurai SIPCOT complex in atransparent manner.O R D E RInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner hassought for a declaration to declare plot CML-15 in Perundurai, SIPCOTIndustrial Park to an extent of 1 acre in favour of the 3rd respondent on29.05.2007, the consequential lease agreement entered and registeredbetween SIPCOT and the 3rd respondent without resorting to public auctionfor such allotment is arbitrary and illegal and violative of public policy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and policy of State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamil NaduLimited, and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to resort to publicauction for allotment CML-15 and any other plot for commercial activityfor weigh bridge in Perundurai SIPCOT complex in a transparent manner2. Affidavit filed in support of this petition and counter affidavitsfiled by the respondents are all perused.3. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.4. The case of the petitioner in short is that the first respondenthad acquired about 2500 acres at Perundurai for the purpose of promotionof Industries, Promotion of Commercial Establishments also and allotmentof plots of various measures purely on lease basis for a period of 99years. While such allotments are made by the first respondent, variousconditions and time limits are imposed. SIPCOT Industrial Park Provisionis made by SIPCOT to have a weigh bridge for industrial needs throughoutthe State; that one plot was reserved for a weigh bridge in so far asPerundurai was concerned. One plot measuring one acre was alreadyallotted to third party in the year 2004. The said weigh bridge isfunctioning till this time. 5. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner and others approachedthe SIPCOT requesting one more plot telling about the necessity for thesame. Project Officer at Perundurai informed that he could not take anyindependent decision and then they approached the General Manager atSIPCOT and when they approached and appraised of the necessity for thesecond weigh bridge at Perundurai, the petitioner and others were informedthat the SIPCOT has been following certain norms and they do not encouragemore than one weigh bridge in SIPCOT Industrial Park. The firstrespondent assured that if the first respondent decides to grant one moreweigh bridge, the land/plot would be allotted as per the present policyand it would be only by public auction for such commercial activity. Thusthe petitioner was not able to get the allotment for another weigh bridgeat SIPCOT complex. The petitioner was anxiously waiting for the secondweigh bridge at Perundurai. To his surprise, he came to know that thefirst respondent has issued the allotment order on 29.05.2007 in favour ofthe third respondent, which is impugned one. Under such circumstances,this petition has been brought forth seeking for the relief of declarationas one asked for in the writ petition.6. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learnedsenior counsel in short would submit that when the petitioner approachedthe Project Officer, the second respondent, it was a matter of policy andtherefore he could not take a decision was the reply and then thepetitioner approached the first respondent, General Manager, who assuredhim that if there was a decision to be taken for second weigh bridge, itwould be only by way of a public auction and that he believed the same.But contrarily, now a lease agreement has been given in favour of thethird respondent, not by way of a public auction though it was acommercial category activity. Therefore, the lease agreement which wascarried out strangely and against the development policy, has got to bedeclared as one illegal. So long as such kind of lease to be made todifferent persons, who have got right to ask for bid and take it in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ auction, is done by not following the method followed by the SIPCOT, therights would be defeated and it would be in violation of their own policy.The learned counsel also relied on a letter addressed by the SIPCOT to M/sShruthi Enterprises, where it has been clearly stated that SIPCOTcomplexes have to be leased out only in public auction for commercialactivities. Which such a communication was addressed and when anassurance was given by the first respondent to the petitioner, such acourse was not followed. But the lease agreement has been entered intowithout following the known proceedings of law and due procedure and ithas been given in favour of the third respondent. Under suchcircumstances, it has to be declared as one against the public policy andapart from that, a direction has got to be given to the second respondentto lease out the same land by way of public auction. Hence the order hasto be set aside.7. Countering to the above, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and2 would submit that in the instant case the petitioner never approachedthe officials of the SIPCOT nor made an application and it was not made byway of a public auction, but the procedure usually adopted before makingthe lease was followed; that in such cases, the applications are calledfor, actually they are verified and they called for an interview and thisallotment was given only to the persons who are eligible and who satisfiesthe conditions as one found in the terms and in the instant case, the sameparameters were followed and there is nothing to be claimed clandestinely.In this case, applications were called for, third respondent filed anapplication along with others, called for interview and allotments weremade after being satisfied. Further, there was no auction. Thispetitioner states that when he approached respondents 1 and 2, there wasan assurance that it would be given by way of public auction. These areall nothing but a concocted story for the purpose of writ petition. Therewas no violation of public policy and what has been the procedure followedin the past has been followed strictly and there was no violation at alland it was made purely on merits following the policy of allotment. Thethird respondent who was the original applicant was given the lease.Hence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed.8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondentwould submit that this petition has been brought forth due tovindictiveness. The object of the petitioner, therefore, is not to giveallotment to 3rd respondent but to give lease in his favour, and only todefeat the lease already been granted in favour of the third respondentherein. The third respondent was one of the applicants and he was calledfor personal interview by the department and inspection was also carriedout and following the same, on selection he has paid a sum of Rs.18 lakhstowards the plot deposit to the development charges and thus, it was givenin his favour and thus, there was no violation of any proceduralformality. Apart from that, the letter referred upon by the petitionercited above was actually one from SIPCOT to one M/s Shruthi Enterprisesand what was asked for was that M/s Shruthi Enterprises made anapplication for installation of the Petrol Bunk, Restaurant and also Waterservice station and not one for a weigh bridge as one asked for in theinstant case. Apart form this, while referring to the same, they were allshown as commercial activities and that must be only by way of publicauction and this production of the letter which was actually given to M/s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Shuthi Enterprises by the petitioner himself would clearly reveal thebonafide of the petitioner, who has brought forth a writ petition beforethis Court. Added further, even M/s Shruthi Enterprises had also got theallotment of land for the purpose of having a weigh bridge, where therewas no public auction, but the same procedure was followed. Under suchcircumstances, the application is lack of bona fide and hence it has gotto be dismissed.9. The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissionsmade. 10. The Court is of the considered opinion that this petitiondeserves an order of dismissal for more reasons than one.11. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that heapproached the department for allotment of a piece of land from SIPCOT forhaving his weigh bridge, but it was not given to him. According to him heapproached the second respondent. Thereafter he approached the firstrespondent and he has given an assurance that if any allotment was to bemade for a weigh bridge in Perundurai, it would be only by way of a publicauction. Nowhere in the entire affidavit it is pleaded that he made anyapplication at any point of time or any representation made or rejectionof the same was made and thus it would be quite clear that except theaverments made in the affidavit, no materials are placed to answer beforethis Court to accept the said contention. Therefore, the petitionercannot be said to be an aggrieved person due to any rejection of hisapplication. A person who has not even made an application before theauthorities seeking for any allotment has brought forth this writ petitionbefore this Court and thus it is highly doubtful whether the petitionerhas got any locus standi to question such an agreement in question. 12. Secondly, in the instant case, the only contention raised by thepetitioner's counsel is that auction has been done clandestinely and notby way of a public auction and thus it is against the public policy. Thiscontention cannot be accepted for the reason that in the instant case theprocedure that are being followed by the SIPCOT in the case of allotmentfor the weigh bridge was not the one by way of public auction and theprocedure that has been followed by the SIPCOT in the past has beenfollowed. From the counter affidavits filed by the lessor and thirdrespondent lessee, it would be quite clear that there was an applicationmade by the third respondent; that he was called for an interview and inthe interview held, the officials were satisfied that the terms andconditions could be fulfilled by the third respondent and only oninspection, the agreement has been entered into. It is true that therewas no public auction. Merely because there was no public auctionconducted, the Court is of the considered opinion that the lease enteredinto between the lessor and lessee namely the SIPCOT and the thirdrespondent cannot be rejected on that ground so long as no proceduralformalities are violated. 13. Nextly, the letter that has been produced by the petitioner side,is actually one written by SIPCOT to M/s Shruthi Enterprises. A readingof which would clearly reveal that an application was made by M/s ShruthiEnterprises for carrying out the commercial activities namely for having https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ restaurant, water service station and petrol bunk. In the reply given bythe SIPCOT, it is mentioned that they are commercial activities and forthat purpose it would be done only in public auction and no where it isfound in the letter that it was for the purpose of weigh bridge and now itis quite clear that letter is of no avail to the petitioner. So long asno irregularity or illegality is noticed in the lease granted in favour ofthe third respondent, the petitioner's contention that it has got to bestruck down as it is violative of public policy cannot be accepted. Addedfurther, the Court is able to notice that in the absence of any materialto indicate that the petitioner ever applied for such allotment, now thepetition has been directly brought forth invoking writ jurisdiction, whichwas nothing but in the opinion of the Court vexatious and hence it has gotto be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarrgTo1. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Post Box No.7223, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.2. The Project Officer, SIPCOT Complex, Perundurai, Erode District.1 cc To M/s.Silambanan, Advocate, SR.588061 cc To Mr.Devaraj, Advocate, SR.58689.1 cc To Mr.S.D.SPhilip, Advocate, SR.58667.W.P.NO.24478 of 2007 KA(CO)RVL 28.09.2007