VALIVALAM DESIGAR POLYTECHNIC Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner Polytechnic was started in the year 1960. In the year 1965, the then Assistant Director of Technical Education had requested the petitioner Polytechnic to donate to the Government an area of 10 acres of land in the petitioner polytechnic campus for the establishment of a Government Junior Technical School. Accordingly, on 11. 9. 65, an extent of 10 acres of land was handed over to the Executive Engineer, Public Works department, Regional Engineering College of Education, Trichy, for construction of a Junior Technical School. The Government had constructed a building in the donated land for the purpose of establishing the school. However, the school could not be run due to poor response from the students and since there were certain audit objections, the Government had decided to close down the High School and it passed the Government order in G. O. Ms. No. 933, Education J2 Department, dated 5. 7. 90, specifying that the building of the Government School attached to the aided Polytechnic may be transferred to the same aided Polytechnic by collecting nominal rents. While so, the petitioner had permitted the 5th respondent to set up a womens' polytechnic in the existing building constructed by the Government. The Government had also granted permission to the 5th respondent to run a womens' polytechnic as per G. O. Ms. No. 440, Education (J2) Department, dated 26. 3. 90, and it had been specifically stated therein that the womens' polytechnic located in the building of the Government Higher Secondary School attached to the petitioner Polytechnic was to be run on rental basis. The said fact was further clarified in the proceedings of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, dated 24. 12. 92, stating that the property in question has, all along, been with the petitioner as per the Government order, dated 5. 7. 90. The petitioner had informed the second respondent, on 2. 3. 93, that the 5th respondent has been permitted to continue on rental basis for a period of two years only and it was also agreed that the 5th respondent would construct their own buildings and relocate the womens' polytechnic therein. Based on the request of the petitioner, the second respondent by a communication, dated 7. 7. 93, directed the 5th respondent to release the land and the building of the Government Higher Secondary School, before the end of the academic year 1994-95 and it had further requested that the property is to be handed over to the petitioner soon after the 5th respondent had shifted the womens' polytechnic to their own premises. In spite of the various representations, no effective steps were taken for handing over the land and the building to the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had placed emphasis on the communication of the Director of Technical Education, Chennai, sent to the managing trustee of the 5th respondent Trust in Letter No. 104569/cw8/91, dated 2. 1. 98, which is as follows: