High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 06 MAD CK 0103

Elite Engineering Corporation vs The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, The Chairman-cum-Managing Director SIDCO and Madurai Thozhirpettai Kudiyirupper Nalvazhuvu Sangam

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 June 2004

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Rajan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No.15070 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 281 words

A.K. Rajan, J.—This writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.128

Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.1997 and to quash the same.

2.

Originally under a scheme framed by the Government of India, the Government of Tamil Nadu along with SIDCO constructed houses and

allotted to industrial workers and economically weaker sections of the people. By the order impugned, the Government wanted to confer title to

those Industrial Workers who were allotted the houses under the scheme. This order is challenged in this Writ petition.

3.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the houses were allotted for the Industrial Workers who were working in its

industry; it is stated in the affidavit that it applied for five houses, but only four houses were allotted to the petitioner/industry. The allotment order

was not filed along with the writ petition. But the second respondent filed a counter wherein in Para-7, it is stated out of 20 houses constructed

under the aforesaid scheme in the SIDCO Industrial Estate at Erode, the second respondent Corporation had allotted 4 houses to four workers

viz., K.Srinivasan, A.Raghavan, G.Srinivasan and Royappan and there is no rejoinder to this affidavit.

From this it is seen the houses were allotted to the individuals and not to the industry itself.

4.

The argument that the houses were allotted to the petitioner, an industrial establishment and therefore, they are aggrieved by the impugned order

is not acceptable. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.

5.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.