Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 405 (MAD)

S. Thiyagarajan v. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. , rep. by its The Branch Manager

2006-02-17

P.SATHASIVAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Proc.No.TIIC/KKD/fu/2003-04 dated 11.12.2003 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional.) Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 11.12.2003 of the respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 3. Though several averments have been made stating that inspite of payment made on various occasions, the respondent without considering the same, issued the impugned proceedings, in view of the fact that even now one time settlement scheme is available as per the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to traverse all the details referred to in the affidavit. 4. In the light of the fact that one time settlement scheme is available up to 31.03.2006, the petitioner herein is directed to make a representation to the respondent highlighting his grievance including the payments made on various dates along with Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such representation is made along with the Demand Draft as mentioned above, the respondent is directed to consider and if the petitioner is eligible for any of the one time settlement scheme, the same may be communicated to the petitioner at once. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to make the representation with Demand Draft for Rs.2,00,000/- within the time as mentioned above, the respondents are free to proceed further. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.