Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Order dated Bearing Referen ce: Total Extent of land allotted in acres: Cost of per acres Consideratio n: 25th Respondent 10th Respondent M/s.Best Corporation Pvt.Ltd.,

26.02.2021 P-I/SIGC -P/Best Corpor ation/2

22.36 Rs.7,84,37,200 35,07,924.86 26th Respondent 11th Respondent M/s.Valasumani Farm Machines Pvt.Ltd.,

26.02.2021 P-I/SIGC - P/Vala sumani /2021

9.00 3,15,78,800 35,08,555.55 27th Respondent 12th Respondent M/s.R.B.WovensPvt.Lt d.,

26.02.2021 P-I/SIGC -P/RB Woven /2021

17.42 acres 6,11,72,456 35,11,622.00 Total

48.78 acres

¶13Land measuring an extent of 150.37 acres was originally allotted to the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation (herein after referred to as TAHDCO, for the sake of convenience), by the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Ltd. (TACID), under notification G.O.Ms.No.58, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated Page No. 15 of 51

28.03.1995, at the rate (Land Acquisition Cost) of Rs.1.35 lakhs per acre on 99 years long lease basis pursuant to G.O.(Ms.)No.165, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 15.07.1992.

¶14The land was allotted to TAHDCO for the purpose of setting up a knitwear based industrial units exclusively for the benefit of person belonging to Adi Dravidar Community.

¶15Entire cost of Rs.203.00 lakhs was also paid to TACID. The site was also handed over to TAHDCO. After the land was allotted to TAHDCO, TACID was amalgamated with the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) in 2003.

¶16SIPCOT however, failed to execute a 99 year old lease deed in favour of TAHDCO, even though, entire lease consideration of Rs.203 Lakhs was received by TACID from the Government of Tamil Nadu. Page No. 16 of 51

¶17Over the land, TAHDCO had also reportedly constructed 200 sheds of plinth area of 186 sq.m. to a size of 15.5m * 12 m and had created further infrastructure inside each shed for the purpose of scheme.

¶18Applications were to be processed by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) adopting the procedure that was being followed. While sanctioning loans to entrepreneurs, TIIC was to hold workshops/seminars, wherein applicants were to be invited and explained of the scheme.

¶19There are no documents filed by the TAHDCO to show that any meaningful steps were taken to ensure that the scheme under the above mentioned notifications were implemented and were realized by training the entrepreneurs as was required under the notification.

¶20The Government selected 26 candidates and 30 candidates were selected and kept in waiting list. 200 Sheds that were constructed Page No. 17 of 51 did not see any use due to lack of interest, reluctance on the part of beneficiaries .

¶21Later, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.75, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 06.09.2000, cancelled the selection of 26 applicants as they were not interested in commencing venture. The project however did not take off due to lack of awareness and various other factors including lack of resource among entrepreneurs from the members of the community for whom the scheme was targeted

¶22G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002 was issued as per which even groups of men who formed a cohesive unit were to be encouraged to get the industrial sheds allotted. Relevant clause for encouraging Self Help Groups in G.O.Ms.No.110 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated

3.12.2002 reads as under:- "Self Help Gropus: The Government direct that while selecting the beneficiaries, Managing Director, TIIC should Page No. 18 of 51 encourage Self Help Groups to undertake suitable projects based on their experience. Even groups of men who form a cohesive unit can also be encouraged."

¶23The Managing Director of TIIC was directed to ensure that the selection of 200 beneficiaries of the Ingur Industrial Estate and 46 beneficiaries for the Mudalipalayam Industrial Estate was to be taken up by TIIC based on the financial viability of the project, networth, expertise of the promoter, willingness and capability of the entrepreneurs to undertake commercially viable project.

¶24The system of selection was through a Committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(Ms)No.21, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 01.02.1993 was superseded. After the selection of beneficiaries, TIIC was to get prior clearance of the Government for the list of the beneficiaries before sanctioning loan applications. Thus, multi pronged steps were taken to ensure that the projects reaches the beneficiaries. Page No. 19 of 51

¶25The petitioner appears to have filed application for allotment of the sheds as a cohesive Self Help Groups/group of men in terms of G.O.Ms.No.110 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated

3.12.2002. The Government also directed the Managing Director, TAHDCO to release advertisement calling for application through one English and one Tamil daily.

¶26The petitioner appears to have sent several letters since 2009 to not only to the Respondent, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department (TAHDCO), Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) but also to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

¶27By letter dated 29.09.2009, the Commissioner of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department in his communication to the Managing Director TAHDCO merely acknowledged the receipt of the application filed by the petitioner and informed that suitable steps will be taken by later. Page No. 20 of 51

¶28The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department by letter dated 24.11.2009, forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Managing Director, TAHDCO forwarded the application and directed the Managing Director of TAHDCO to inform the petitioner about the steps being taken for allotting the RCC sheds to the petitioner out of 200 sheds built in Ingur in Perundurai Erode District. Relevant portion of letter dated 24.11.2009 of the Commissioner , Adi dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department addressed to the Managing Director, TAHDCO reads as under:- " e/f/vz;/vr;

1/26730/09

ehs;

: 24.11.2009

ma;ah. bghUs; :Mjpjpuhtplh; eyk; -<nuhL khtl;lk; -bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh <';Th; jhl;nfh K:yk; fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw;Tl';fs; RCC Shed kw;Wk fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F ntz;Ljy; rk;ge;jkhf/ ghh;it : jpU/ ,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; B.E., L.L.B., ,af;Feh; jdgjp mk;khs; Rantiytha;g;g[ fy;tp kw;Wk; r\fnkk;ghl;L

mwf;fl;lis

mynkYg[uk;. tpGg;g[uk; khtl;lk;/ <nuhLkhtl;lk; bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh <';Th; jhl;nfh\yk; fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw; Tl';fs; RCC Shed kw;Wk fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F ntz;oaJ Fwpj;j kDit eltof;if vLf;Fk; bghUl;L ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ. nkw;go eltof;ifapd; tptuj;ij kDjhuUf;F bjhptpf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ Page No. 21 of 51 Mjpjpuhtplh; ey MizaUf;fhf/"

¶29Since the petitioner did not receive any positive feedback from the Managing Director of TAHDCO, the petitioner has also approached the Chief Minister's Cell. The Chief Minister's Cell has also sent a reminder to the Office of the Managing Director of TAHDCO. Thus, by letter dated 21.12.2009, the Managing Director of the TAHDCO responded to the Chief Ministers Cell and stated as follows:- " f.vz;.vr;

5/2582/09

ehs;

:21.12.2009

bgWeh; jdpmYtyh;. Kjyikr;rhpd; jdpgphpt[. g[dpj $hh;$; njhl;il. brd;id 9. – Iah. bghUs; :<nuhL khtl;lk; - bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh- <';Th; - jhl;nfh \yk; fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw; Tl';fs; RCC Shed kw;Wk; fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F ntz;Ljy; Fwpj;J. ghh;it : jdgjpmk;khs; Ra ntiytha;g;g[ fy;tp kw;Wk; r\fnkk;ghl;L mwf;fl;lis tpGg;g[uk; jpU.,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; mth;fspd; fojk; kw;Wk; Kjyikr;rhpd; jdpgphpt[ f/vz;.281422.ER/A91/09, ehs;: 23.10.2009 Page No. 22 of 51 ghh;itapy; fhqk; kDjhuh; jpU.,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; mth;fs; jkpHfj;jpy; cs;s midj;J Mjpjpuhtplh; khztpah; khzth;fs; eyd; kw;Wk; ntiyapy;yh gl;ljhhpfSf;F bjhHpy; Kidnthh; gapw;rp ikak; Muha;r;rpikak; bjhHpy; El;gk; kw;Wk; kUj;Jt fy;Yhhp ,ytr kUj;Jt nritikak; mikf;f <';Th; Tl';fs; kw;Wk; fhypapl';fs; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F tH';f nfhhpa[s;shh;/ muR Miz vz;.110d; go jkpH;ehL bjhHpy; KjyPl;L fHfj;jpd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspj;J muR Miz bgw;w gpwF bjhHpw; Tlk; xJf;fpj;ju Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf ntW epjp epWtd';fspd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gLk; gadhspfSf;F bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;f muR Mizapy; jpUj;jk;

nfhhp

jhl;nfhtpd;

Kd;

bkhHpt[ rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. jhl;nfhtpd; Kd; bkhHptpw;F murplkpUe;J Mizg; bgwg;gl;lJk; gadhsp nfhhpa bjhHpw;Tlk; rk;ke;jkhf Kot[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ nkyhz;ik ,af;FeUf;fhf/"

¶30It appears that a proposal was submitted before TAHDCO to amend the Government Order to allot factories to the beneficiaries who could get loans from other financial institutions. It was informed that a decision will be taken once the order is received from the Government before TAHDCO, for Managing Director. Page No. 23 of 51

¶31Thus, it was informed that the request of the petitioner to get loan from other Financial bodies was under consideration and suitable amendment will be made to G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002 after getting necessary permission of the Government. As late as, 27.12.2013, the petitioner had sent a letter to Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation (TAHDCO).

¶32It appears that the petitioner thereafter did not follow with the respondent and assumed that G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 30.12.2002 will be amended and industrial shed will be allotted to the petitioner.

¶33Meanwhile, the Project Director, SIPCOT has however decided to allot the land to measuring a total extent of 48.78 acres out of 150.35 acres in favour of the private respondents, even though, the land for all practical purpose was under the control of TAHDCO although a Lease Deed was never executed in favour of TAHDCO either by SIPCOT's or its predecessor namely TACID. Page No. 24 of 51

¶34Thus, the possession of 48.78 acres out of 150.35 acres of land is said to have been resumed by SIPCOT on 11.2.2021 and handed over to the private respondents.

¶35The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that letter dated 02.03.2022 of the Principal Secretary to Government, the content of which has been extracted above cannot authorize to take over of the land by SIPCOT, as a Government Order can be modified only by another Government Order. The said letter of the Principal Secretary to Government dated 02.03.2022 post facto cannot modify a Government Orders. Land allotted to TAHDCO cannot be allotted to the private respondents

¶36In this connection, a reference is made to the decision of this Court rendered in the following two cases:- i. TAHDCO Contractors Association Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, W.P.No.4314 of 2010 dated 15.09.2010; ii. K.Sampath Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., W.P.(MD).No.4921 of 2006. Page No. 25 of 51

¶37That apart, it is submitted that the Government has also not filed any counter. It is not for an officer of TAHDCO, to explain the studied silence of the Government by stating that the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation, TAHDCO, was authorized to file affidavit on behalf of the Principal Secretary to Government, the Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and the individuals R6, R7, R8 & R9.

¶38It is submitted that the Government also cannot rely on the counter filed by the SIPCOT. It is further submitted that the petitioner has locus standi to question the allotment made in favour of the private respondents.

¶39Merely because deponent has been blacklisted as the contractor, ipso facto will not mean that irregular resumption of land and irregular allotment of land in favour of the private respondents can be ignored. Page No. 26 of 51

¶40The argument that the petitioner and the deponent who has filed these writ petitions are different cannot be accepted as the Trust has been constituted by the members of the same family which is given the deponent wide powers.

¶41Merely, because the petitioner is a registered Trust and is meant to espouse the interest of downtrodden and persons from marginalized section of the society, particularly those belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community, appears ipso facto mean that the petitioners intentions are not bonafide.

¶42Whether the petitioner can act as a catalyst for ensuring the objectives of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.165, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 15.07.1992, G.O.Ms.No.21, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.02.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated

30.12.2002 are acted upon is highly debatable as the petitioner's managing trustee does not have a clean and unblemished track record. Page No. 27 of 51

¶43Merely because 83 beneficiaries who were identified failed to live up to the expectation of the Government which led to resulted in cancellation of allotment of sheds ipso facto would not mean that the project has to be abandoned and that the land earmarked for the welfare of persons belonging to Adi Dravidar Community can be given away to private entrepreneurs/industrial units.

¶44By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 30.12.2002, the restriction of economic activity in the industrial shed to knitwear was removed and was expanded to include of types of unit that were financially viable and potentially viable. However, it did not permit allotment of land to the private respondents taking away the benefit welfare scheme.

¶45There was no transparency in the allotment of land in favour of the private respondent herein. Straight away, applications of the private respondent were accepted and allotment were made out of turn. It shows undue alacrity to making out of turn allotment. Page No. 28 of 51

¶46The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: i. M/s.Erusian

Equipment

and Chemicals Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (1975) 1 SCC 70; ii. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, (1979) 3 SCC 489; iii. Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1985) 4 SCC 417; iv. K.I.Shephard and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431; v. Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India,

(1994) 6 SCC 651;

vi. Asia Foundation and Construction Limited Vs. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Limited and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 738; vi. Union of India and Another Vs. International Trading Co. and Another, (2003) 5 SCC 437; vii.Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Airports Authority of India and Others, (2006) 10 SCC; viii.Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others; (2010) 13 SCC 427; Page No. 29 of 51 ix. Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 731; x. Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others; (2014) 9 SCC 105; xi. State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and Others; 1995 SUPP (4) SCC 469; xii.Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 492; xiii.Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Girja Shankar Pand and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 182; xiv.Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 534; xv.National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 370; xvi.Kannaiyan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (4) MLJ 651; xvii.Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 1; Page No. 30 of 51 xviii.Uflex Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 165; xix. Shobha Suresh Jumani Vs. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property and Another, (2001) 5 SCC 755; xx. R.P.Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Others, (2005) 10 SCC 244; xxi.K.Sampath Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

and

Others, MANU/TN/9958/2006;

¶47The submission of Mr.S.Silambanan, learned AAG adopting the counter affidavit of TAHDCO, in W.P.No.16482 of 2022 and drew attention to paragraph 13. Paragraph 13 reads as follows:- "13. A regards the averments made in Paragraph 15 and 20 of the affidavit, it is submitted, the petitioner Trust, addressed a representation dated: 20.10.2009, replied by TAHDCO that MuR Miz vz;/110d; go jkpH;ehL bjhHpy; KjyPl;L fHfj;jpd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspj;J muR Miz bgw;w gpwF

bjhHpw;Tlk;

xJf;fpw;fhd Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf ntW epjp epWtd';fspd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy;

mspf;fg;gLk;

gadhspfSf;F bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;f murhizapy; jpUj;jk; Page No. 31 of 51 nfhhp

jhl;nfhtpy;

Kd;bkhHptpw;F murplkpUe;J Miz bgwg;gl;l gpd; gadhsp nfhhpa bjhHpw;Tlk; rk;ke;jkhf Kot[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/"

¶48The learned Senior Counsel for the SIPCOT would submit that there were no representation by the petitioner after initial representation in 2013. The petitioner Trust appears to be unaware about the allotment to 83 beneficiaries and their subsequent cancellation. It is submitted that Selection Committee consisting of 9 members was constituted by the Government to chose the eligible allottees. Allotment was made to 83 beneficiaries vide G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 28.6.2002. G.O.Ms.No.60 dated

28.6.2002 was later cancelled vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 13.3.2020 as there was no interest from beneficiaries.

¶49The learned counsel Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, reiterated the submissions and submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi is not relevant for the reasons already submitted. Page No. 32 of 51

¶50It is submitted that the Managing Trustee, K.Dhanapathyammal died in the year 2019 and Mrs.R.Ananthayee died around 5 years ago while Mrs.Mallika resigned in the year 2010.

¶51He drew attention to paragraph 15 of the Common Counter Affidavit of Best Corporation Private Limited" in W.P.No.10536 & 16482 of 2022. Paragraph 15 of the Common Counter Affidavit reads as follows: "It is submitted that the above two speculative Writ Petitions filed by the Trust represented by its Director, does not seem to be bonafide and genuine for the following reasons: a) The Trust was formed on 28.08.2009 with one Founder/Chairman, one Managing Trustee and five Trustees. b) Clause IX (a) of the Trust Deed Status that All the executive powers of the Trust shall vest with the Management Trustee and he shall be the authority to use and to be sued on behalf of the Board of Trustee. Hence, the above Writ Petitions filed by the Trust represented by someone claiming to be a Director, is contrary to conditions of the Trust Deed. c) In the Affidavit in support of the above Page No. 33 of 51 Writ Petitions, the deponent states that Founder Trustee K.Dhanapathyammal died in the year 2019, R.Ananthayee died 5 years ago, Mallika and Anjalai resigned in the year 2010, but went on to claim that he was appointed as a Director under resolution dated

02.09.2009 (Pg.No.267 in the paper book of W.P.No.16482/2022) signed by P.Saraswathi, A.Rajalakshmi and B.Abirami. It may be pertinent to note that on the date of resolution i.e.,

02.09.2009 which was said to have been passed within 4 days from the formation of the Trust, was signed by only two trustees while A.Rajalakshmi was not a trustee at all. d) The Trust Deed does not state that the same has been formed solely for the welfare of Adi Dravidar Community or for the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste. But it states that the Trust is for the up-liftment of the weaker section in the society irrespective of creed or religion and providing

them

systematically education and foster social, economic, cultural and educational growth. It is submitted that the above facts demonstrate that the above Writ Petitions have been filed by the Trust represented by its Director, is to get a direction from this Hon'ble Court for allotment of the entire industrial plots in 150.35 Acres with 200 industrial sheds etc., to it in the guise of Trust." Page No. 34 of 51

¶52It is therefore submitted that only three Trustees were there, namely Mrs.P.Saraswathi, Mrs.V.Abirami and Mrs.A.Rajeshwari. They have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 280 wherein it was held that Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:- "11. The principles on which a Writ of Mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G.Ferris, Jr.: "Note 187. Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, Page No. 35 of 51 requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192 - Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196 - Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on Page No. 36 of 51 one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206 - The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action."

¶12These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj SathramdasLalvani v. N.M.Shah, Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar this Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports

(SCC): (Sipahi Singh Case, SCC pp.152-53) "15. There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a Page No. 37 of 51 case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ of compel the performance of some statutory duty case upon the Page No. 38 of 51 authorities. The respondents have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the appellant Bank to declare their account as NPA from 31.03.2000 and apply RBI Guidelines to their case."

¶53I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. I have also perused the Government orders and the documents filed along with these two writ petitions.

¶54Unilateral resumption of land measuring an extent of 48.78 Acres out of 150.35 Acres of land allotted to the TAHDCO by the SIPCOT and allotment 48.78 Acres of the land to the private respondents is arbitrary and in excess of the powers vested with the SIPCOT.

¶55The argument that no reason has been stated in the affidavit as to why the petitioner Trust was in-active for 8 years in pursuing with the Government for allotment of land is not relevant. Page No. 39 of 51

¶56The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for SIPCOT that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment, although correct, cannot be ignored at the same time.

¶57Even, if the petitioner lacked locus standi, the Court cannot turn a Nelson's eyes as the irregular allotment of the lands in favour of the private respondents were made which are arbitrary and are therefore liable to be declared to be irregular.

¶58Even if the petitioner lacks the locus standi, the Court cannot close its eyes to irregularity committed by the officials of SIPCOIT and the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department allotting the lands to the private respondents without following the due proper procedure. Irregular allotment of land also do not justify the action of the SIPCOT.

¶59These allotment of the land in favour of the private respondents is also contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Page No. 40 of 51 Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.

¶60Interview conducted by the Selection Committee on basis online application smacks of arbitrariness. Post facto, approval for cancellation and resumption of land by SIPCOT and payment of the lease amount for the resumed portion of the land is not sufficient.

¶61The allotment of land should have also involved a public auction by calling for a tender ensuring public participation so that the best price could have been fixed.

¶62There are also no records to show that proper advertisements were made in the by SIPCOT before receiving applications from the private respondents.

¶63Further, SIPCOT has taken advantage of its own breach in not executing the lease deed in favour of TAHDCO after having received entire lease consideration from the Government after the land was Page No. 41 of 51 allotted to TAHDCO under G.O.Ms.No.58/AD & TW Department dated

28.03.1995.

¶64The fact that the vacant land was being used as a playground, grazing lands for cattle by the villagers, as pathway and that there was also a small temple present in the said land did not justify resumption and allotment of 48.78 acres of land to the private respondents.

¶65Merely, because there is a huge demand for lands business person for setting up and establishing industries was not a sufficient reason to make irregular allotment.

¶66Proper procedure ought to have been followed by SIPCOT before even venture to resume the land from TAHDCO and in allotting it to the private respondents. Page No. 42 of 51

¶67The fact that no Lease Deed was executed between SIPCOT and TAHDCO, as TAHDCO wanted outright sale of the plot which was not agreeable to SIPCOT is also irrelevant. One mistake will not justify another mistake.

¶68Post facto, letter of SIPCOT informing the allotment and execution of lease in favor of the private respondents is also highly arbitrary and is to be frowned upon.

¶69The resumption of land to an extent of 48.78 Acres and their allotment and further execution of lease deed in favour of the private respondents by SIPCOT were irregular as scarce resource viz land meant for achieving the laudatory objects of part IV of the Constitution of India has been sacrificed on the altar in favour of the private respondents and allotted in favour of the private respondents in an irregular fashion.

¶70Therefore, resumption of land without a proper Government Page No. 43 of 51 Order cancellation of previous Government Orders and allotment of land in favour of the private respondents are liable to be declared as irregular.

¶71Arbitrary decisions have been by SIPCOT with the Officials of the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department to process applications from the private respondents across the table to allot 48.78 acres of land out of 150.35 acres of land from the Ingur Industrial park to the private respondents was clearly without following proper procedure.

¶72A proper procedure for resumption of land by SIPCOT should have first preceded by a prior Government Order recalling, the earlier Government Orders under which the land was allotted to TAHDCO.

¶73However, the fact remains that the purpose for which the land measuring an extent of 150.35 acres was allotted to TAHDCO in the year 1995 had not been achieved as the project never took off for which various Government Orders were issued. Page No. 44 of 51

¶74The private respondents have put up their units/factories by investing in the infrastructure. To ask these private respondents to vacate the premises would mean imposing a incalculable harm on them for the mistakes of the concerned officers from the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and SIPCOT.

¶75To ask the private respondents to vacate and demolish the factory would also mean loss of natural resources utilized in developing therm. Court cannot order such drastic measures.

¶76Therefore,48.78 acres of land out of 150.35 acres of land allotted to the private respondents herein cannot be disturbed.

¶77Therefore, to balance the interest of the parties, Court is not inclined to disturb the possession of the land and their utilization by the private respondents as they have developed units/infrastructure pursuant to the impugned allotment letters on the land measuring at 48.78 acres out of 150.37 acres. Page No. 45 of 51

¶78Therefore, the following orders are passed:-

i)The amount received towards lease deed from the private respondents by SIPCOT is directed to be transferred together with interest at bank rate within a period of 30 days from today to TAHDCO.

ii) The value of lease adopted in favour of the private respondents shall be re-examined and revisited and the difference in the market value of the land that prevailed in 2021 shall be paid to TAHDCO by the private respondents.

iii) The private respondents shall pay the difference directly to the TAHDCO.

iv) The amount of lease to be transferred and deposited to TAHDCO by SIPCOT and to be paid by the private respondents shall be utilized for the welfare activities to be under taken by TAHDCO. Page No. 46 of 51

v) The Government shall issue suitable notification for regularizing allotment the land to the extent of

48.78 acres of land in favour of the private respondents by the TAHDCO and regularize the commercial activity of the private respondents ensuring that the private rights of the private respondents are not compromised except to the extent specified herein. Petitioner request for allotment of existing infrastructure may be considered

by

suitably

amending G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002.

vi) The Government may issue suitable Government Orders to ensure employment opportunities are created in the land used by these private parties in favour of the persons belonging to the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Community for whose benefit the land was allotted to TAHDCO way back in the year 1993 vide G.O.(MS)No.21, Page No. 47 of 51 Adi Aravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 01.02.1993.

vii) This exercise shall be carried out by the Government as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. These writ petitions stand disposed of with the above directions.

11.12.2023 Index : Yes/No kkd Note : Registry is directed to return the original files to the learned counsel for SIPCOT Issue Order copy on 19.01.2024 To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Page No. 48 of 51 Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

3.The Chief Financial Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

4.The Hon'ble Minister, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶5The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶6The General Manager, (P-II) State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

7.The Project Officer, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd.SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center, R40, SIPCOT, Perundurai, Tamil Nadu 638 052.

¶8The Chairperson, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶9The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development, Page No. 49 of 51 Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶10The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶11The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

C.SARAVANAN, J. kkd

¶12The General Manager-Administration, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶13The General Manager-Technical Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

¶14The Executive Engineer, Coimbatore Division, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.

15.The Managing Director, Page No. 50 of 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 02.11.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.12.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and WMP.Nos.10225, 10226, 15767, 15770 to 15772 & 15774 of 2022 W.P.No.10536 of 2022 Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust (DSEDT), rep.by Director, R.Parthiban ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Chief Financial Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. Page No. 1 of 51 4.The Hon'ble Minister, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 5. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 6. The General Manager, (P-II) State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 7.The Project Officer, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd.SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center, R40, SIPCOT, Perundurai, Tamil Nadu 638 052. 8. The Chairperson, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. 9. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development, Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. 10. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. Page No. 2 of 51 11. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. 12. The General Manager-Administration, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. 13. The General Manager-Technical Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. 14. The Executive Engineer, Coimbatore Division, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. 15. K.Manivasan 16. S.Mudhumathi 17.Vijayarani 18.K.Vivekanandan 19.T.Anand 20.H.Krishnanunni 21.H.Prabavathy 22.K.Alagupandian 23.R.Saraswathi Page No. 3 of 51 24. M.Nisha 25.M/s.Best Corporation Private Limited, 2nd Street, Avinashi-Trippur Road, Padmavathipuram, Tiruppur, Tamil nadu 641 603. 26. M/s.Valasumani Farm Machineries Private Limited, 42, Sivagari, Muthur Road, Erode, Tamil Nadu 638 109. 27. M/s.RBWovens Private Limited, 59, Raja Street, Sanjay Nagar, Narayanavalasu, Erode, Tamil Nadu 638 011. Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the respondents relating to the Order No.PO/SIP-P/TAHDCO/2022 dated 10.02.2022 passed by the 7th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 14, to pass necessary orders allotting 150.35 Acres including the 200 sheds constructed in the SIPCOT land at INGUR Perundurai, Erode, for 99 years lease, for one time lease amount of Rs.3 Crores together with the loan of Rs.5 Crores for alteration/maintenance of the aforesaid 200 sheds, to the petitioner Trust. For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Haribabu, & Mr.P.Munusamy Page No. 4 of 51 For R1 to R5, R15 to R18 & R20 : Mr.S.Silambanan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.C.Sangamithirai For R6 & R7 & R19 & R21 : Mr.P.Wilson Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Karthikjeyan Spl.Govt.Pleader For R8 to R14, R22 to R24 : Mr.C.A.Ashok Kumar For R25 to R27 : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel W.P.No.16482 of 2022 Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and Education Development Trust (DSEDT), rep.by Director, R