TUBE SUPPLIERS LIMITED Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is a company. THE writ petitioner has filed a petition in W. M. P. No. 565 of 1997 for the substitution of the present name of the company, "mac Industrial Products Ltd. " in the place of "tube Suppliers Ltd. ". Under the scheme of amalgamation, the company's name was changed as V. R. W. Industrie s Limited with effect from 13. 11. 1990 and by a subsequent amalgamation V. R. W. Industrie s Limited was merged with Tubes and malleable Limited by an order of this court in Company Petition Nos. 177 and 178 of 1974 and the name of the company was also changed to MAC Industrial Products ltd. Since there is a change in the name of the petitioner by an order of this court, the petition in W. M. P. No. 565 of 1997 to amend the name of the petition in the cause title is ordered.

(2.) THE writ petitioner owns a piece of land in Vanagaram Village, Saidapet Taluk. THE petitioner is running a factory manufacturing fire bricks. THE petitioner set up the factory store room, drying yeard , kiln, etc. , for running the factory of manufacturing fire bricks. THE petitioner has open space which is used for storing materials as well as for free access of lorries used for the purpose of its business. THE property is situate in survey Nos. 9 ,10 , 17, 18, 20,15/28, 76, 16/1 and 10.

(3.) THE fact remains that when the second respondent issued notice under Rule 3 of the Rules, the petitioner raised an objections by a letter dated In the letter dated 8. 11. 1985, the petitioner set out the objections in detail. THE objections was forwarded to the requisitioning body and the requisitioning body merely sent a communication saying,'objection may be overruled'. No doubt, the remarks of the requisitioning body were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted its reply on 15. 5. 1986. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that further enquiry was conducted on 18. 4. 1986 and 15. 5. 1985. But, the requisitioning body has not informed the reasons which led him to pass such remarks,'objection may be overruled'. THE whole object of conducting enquiry under Rule 3 (b) is set out by decisions of this Court in Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1987 W. L. R. 182 and in Krishna Iyer v. State of madras, 1967 (2) M. L. J. 422, as under:- "to comply with the requirement of the above rule, it was necessary to fix a date, after the receipt of objections for the hearing and give notice of that date both to the objector as well as to the above department who was interested in the acquisition proceedings. It was urged by the learned counsel that this obligation to give notice to the Department serves an important purpose both in the interests of the owner of the land as well as of the Department, because if the department is made aware of the objections of the owner of the land, it might consider the alternative of selecting a different land more suited for its purpose, and which may also meet the objections of the owner. This aspect of the rules has been referred to by a bench of the Kerala High Court while considering the Madras rules in the decision reported in Lonappan v. Sub collector, Palghat , AIR 1959 Ker. 343 and that decision was also quoted before me. "