M/S Thanu Praba Constructions vs. The Principal Secretary/

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of based on the amicable settlement reached between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner's undertaking to pay Rs. 11,51,900/- in three equal installments within 30 days of each other, and to complete the construction and project implementation within six months from the revocation of the cancellation order, was placed on record. The Court directed the petitioner to comply with these terms. It was explicitly stated that any default or deviation by the petitioner would lead to the restoration of the impugned order of cancellation. No specific issue regarding the legality of the original cancellation order was decided on merits, as the matter was settled.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Thanu Praba Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary/Chairman & Managing Director of SIPCOT, which cancelled the allotment of Plot No.4A/2 (3.82 acres) at the SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Pudukkottai. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to commence construction work for over four years. The petitioner had explained the delay was due to difficulties in obtaining financial assistance from the bank. During the hearing, both parties reported an amicable settlement. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 11,51,900/- as per a letter dated 28.07.2017, which included differential land cost, processing fees, and GST/CST. The petitioner also undertook to complete construction within six months of the revocation of the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the allotment order dated 23.10.2013 by the first respondent is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay in construction and the subsequent settlement between the parties? The petitioner argued that the delay in construction was due to financial difficulties and that a settlement had been reached with the respondents. The petitioner relied on an undertaking to pay the agreed amount and complete the project within a stipulated time. The respondents, represented by the first respondent, acknowledged the settlement and the petitioner's undertaking. They did not present any arguments against the petitioner's case, having agreed to the terms of settlement.