2011 (9) TMI 1255 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the cancellation of an allotment made in favor of a company at the SIPCOT Information Technology Park, failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment, initiation of actions under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act, challenge against the cancellation order, possession of the plot, and the legality of the eviction notice.

Cancellation of Allotment:
The original allottee failed to observe the terms and conditions of the allotment, including commencing construction within the stipulated time frame and utilizing the plot for the designated purpose. Consequently, the allotment was cancelled, and actions were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act for eviction of unauthorized occupants.

Challenge Against Cancellation:
The petitioner, representing the company, challenged the cancellation order, claiming that they were in rightful possession of the property following an amalgamation. They argued that the original allottee had failed to comply with the conditions of the allotment and that the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the proceedings related to the cancellation and eviction.

Legal Standpoint:
The Supreme Court's decisions in U.P. Financial Corpn. v. Gem Cap (India) (P) Ltd. and Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd. emphasize that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority over administrative actions unless there is a statutory violation or unfairness on the part of the corporation. The relationship between the corporation and the borrower is that of creditor and debtor, and the court cannot interfere unless there is a violation of statutory provisions.

Decision:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not have the standing to challenge the cancellation order or the eviction notice. The court found no unreasonableness in the actions taken by the respondents and concluded that there was no case made out by the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.