T. KUPPAN Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMIL NADU LTD., (A GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU UNDERTAKING), CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relevant to ADI/ICR/M -63/88 -94 dated 25.5.1998 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary against the rule of law and natural justice and thereby direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the public or drawal of lots for allotting the shopping plot No.12/18/6/24 in shopping site at SIPCOT Industrial Complex at Ranipet, Vellore District.

(2.) THIS Court ordered notice of motion to the respondents on 25.6.1998. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, constructed a shopping complex at Ranipet and allotted them to the public on a lease -cum -sale basis. The respondents 1 and 2 were allotted three cents for constructing shops on a lease -cum -sale basis for 99 years. The petitioner, on coming to know of the same, made representation to the then Advisor on 4.11.1988 and requested for allotment of three cents of land on a lease -cum -sale to construct a shop in the Sipcot Industrial Complex. The 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that a draw of lots was conducted in the presence of allottees on 31.8.95. The petitioner attended the draw. The petitioner was one of the successful allottee and the same was intimated to the petitioner on 9.11.89. The petitioner was allotted plot No.60 in SIPCOT Housing Colony subject to the conditions stipulated in the lease -cum -sale agreement and the cost of the plot being Rs.19,368/= for the extent of 1114 Sq.Ft. The petitioner paid the entire sum of Rs.19,368/= on 4.12.1989.

(3.) DURING April 1998, the petitioner came to know that there was a proposal to lease plot Nos. 12/18/6/24 in shopping site at SIPCOT for a period of 99 years. The petitioner applied for the same on 27.4.1998. There was no advertisement for allotment of shops. Even on the earlier occasion also, when the shopping Plot No.60 was allotted, a drawal was conducted. But no drawal was conducted nor there was any intimation. The petitioner contacted the 2nd respondent and he was informed that the first respondent will be passing orders on allotment. However, without following any procedure, the four shopping plots were allotted directly to respondents 3 to 6.