9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ologies India Private Limited in plot No. 6/D-6 to an extent of 3.07 acres at the SIPCOT Information Technology Park was cancelled by an order dated 26.7.2006 by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director as they had failed to observe the terms and conditions cited in the show cause notice, dated 12.4.2006. They were also given a direction to execute a cancellation deed in favour of the SIPCOT. The petitioner company was further informed that since the original allottee had failed to comply with the conditions of allotment, dated 20.12.2004 and they had failed to surrender physical possession of the plot to the SIPCOT and to execute a cancellation deed, actions were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso failed to appear for an enquiry fixed on 18.7.2008. Therefore, under the power vested on the Estate Officer, the premises handed over to the original allottee was directed to be taken possession by the Assistant Engineer, SIPCOT. Challenging the said order, the present Petitioner filed the writ petition. It was admitted on 18.4.2009. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted by this Court. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit, dated Nil (September, 2011) was filed by the Assistant General Manager, SIPCOT. 4. The stand of the Petitioner was that Axes Technology (India) Private Ltd. had paid the cost of the plot including development charges on 14.2.2005. The Respondent SIPCOT sent a proposal to convert the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was passed without notice to the Petitioner. On 8.6.2008, the Petitioner company had stated that as soon as the name change after amalgamation is done, they will execute the surrender deed. They had also sent a letter dated 11.6.2008 stating that they can deal with the present company in the matter of allotment. The eviction notice itself was addressed to the old company. On 26.2.2009, a legal notice was sent by the company to the SIPCOT. It was thereafter, they moved this Court and obtained an interim order. 5. The contention made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. G. Ethirajulu was that after amalgamation, the Petitioner was in rightful possession of the property. In fact, clause No. 8 of the terms of allotment clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or the order to direct the hand over of possession under the Public Premises Act. 7. The Supreme Court in U.P. Financial Corpn. v. Gem Cap (India) (P) Ltd., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 299 has held that it is only in case of statutory violation on the part of the SIPCOT or only when they had acted unfairly or unreasonably, the question of jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked. The following passages found in paragraphs 3,12 and 10 from the said judgment reads as follows: 3. With great respect to the learned judges who allowed the writ petition we feel constrained to say this: a reading of the judgment shows that they have not kept in mind the well-recognized limitations of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constituti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the four corners of the Act and in furtherance of the object underlying the Act. But this factor cannot be carried to the extent of obligating the corporation to revive and resurrect every sick industry irrespective of the cost involved. Promoting industrialization at the cost of public funds does not serve the public interest; it merely amounts to transferring public money to private account. The fairness required of the corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it. While not insisting upon the borrower to honour the commitments undertaken by him, the corporation alone cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name of fairness. Fairness is not a one way street, more particularly in matters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless. 8. The Supreme Court in Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 456, laid down parameters for exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226. Hence it is necessary to refer to the relevant passage found in paragraph 19, which reads as follows: 19. From the aforesaid, the legal principles that emerge are: (i) The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as an appellate authority over the acts and deeds of the Financial Corporation and seek to correct them. The doctrine of fairness does not conv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
