INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Vs. TAMILNADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 herein from abridging the width of the 80 feet road to 30 feet road within the Guindy Industrial Estate and the grant of any permission by the respondents 5 to 7 herein to the respondents 1 to 4 herein or claiming under or through them to abridge the roads from 80 feet to 30 feet within the Guindy Industrial Estate.

(2.) The petitioner is the Industrial Estate Manufacturers' Association which was started in the year 1959. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, they have about 700 registered members consisting of small, tiny and other types of industries. It looks after the interests of the said service units and are also involved in consultation and mediation between the allottees and various authorities. The Industrial Estate at Guindy known as Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate was established by the Government in the year 1956. A total extent of 404.08 acres were acquired for the purpose of over all development of Madras Metropolitan Area and classified as "General Industrial Zone". Worksheds were constructed with built up area ranging from 1020 sq.ft. to 6930 sq.ft and allotted to the persons desirous to start Small Scale Industries on rental basis. Some of the lands were developed and divided into small industrial plots and allotted to different entrepreneurs. In order to encourage small and tiny entrepreneurs 110 tiny sheds were built with an extent of 200 sq.ft and 400 sq.ft. They were also constructed and allotted under hire purchase basis.

(3.) Originally the estate was administered by State Directorate of Industries and Commerce and now Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO) is administering the said estate. The petitioner has given certain other details as regards the facilities and infrastructures features available within the estate, which are not necessary for disposing the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the width of the road according to the plan was required to be about 80' for the entire length. A detailed development plan was formulated in conformity with the Development Control Rules for Madras Metropolitan Area and as per the rules applicable to the laying of public roads. In terms of Section 33 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, the Detailed Development plan was formulated and approved under the Act. It is further stated that several vacant plots were arbitrarily allotted to several unqualified and favoured persons by the respondents 1 to 4 without any authority of law. The respondents 1 to 4 have been violating all the norms and rules of the Development Control Rules and Town and Country Planning Act. The above 80 feet road which runs through the Estate has been ear marked in the estate in conformity with the Detailed Development Plan considering that the total length of the road is more than 3000 meters. But the respondents are trying to narrow the width of the road to 30 feet and to allot the remaining width of 50 feet road to some other persons for extraneous consideration without following the provisions contained in Rules and Act and without obtaining prior approval from the Government and other statutory authorities. The width of the road was prescribed at 80 feet considering the nature of traffic requirements. The impugned action of the respondents to allot the width of 50 feet to some other persons by reducing the width from 80 feet is illegal. The respondents 1 to 4 are acting arbitrarily as though all the rights in the industrial estate is vested with them. The petitioner further states that drainage, sanitation, telephone, water and electricity have all already been laid and provided for the facility of the members and non-members who use the road. Further expansion would not at all be possible as it will damage the drainage, sanitation, telephone, water, electricity connections. The impugned action of the respondents will also affect the drainage system during monsoon thus causing water logging. Aggrieved against the impugned action, the petitioner had made several representations to the first respondent and to the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu pointing out the various violations and anomalies and also requesting the first respondent not to abridge the width of the road. As the representations of the petitioner have not been properly considered and attempts were being made to allot the disputed area, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.