R CHANDER Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND A BOND STRANDS PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, RAMALINGA RAYA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 5.4.2006 passed by F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., in W.P. No. 9404 of 2006. The writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner in the writ petition. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made in letter No. FA1/A372/2005, dated 18.10.2005 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to issue notification in respect of plot bearing No. 7, Thirukatchur and Sengundram Area, Maraimalai Nagar for allotment so as to enable the petitioner to submit his application for allotment.

(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above writ appeal are set out below:

(3.) The learned Judge considering the fact that the petitioner continued to be an employee in Rane Engine Valves Limited and in the absence of any material to substantiate the stand of the petitioner that he approached the first respondent as regards the availability and allotment of industrial plots and in the absence of any material to show that he had technical know-how and he is capable of starting an industry of his own, doubted his bona fides in challenging the impugned proceedings. The learned Judge has also pointed out that the petitioner had not placed any material to show that he had taken any steps for starting an industry or even what type of industry he wants to promote by using technical expertise. The learned Judge also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner had filed the cancellation letter issued to the original allottee Mr.Ganesan as well as the impugned proceedings under which the allotment came to be made in favour of the second respondent and on that ground came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is not bona fide and he must be acting either at the instance of the erstwhile allottee or with some other ulterior motive and in view of the aforesaid conclusion, the writ petition came to be dismissed.