Judgment Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demand made by the second respondent by his impugned proceedings, dated 12. 2003, asking the petitioner to pay the maintenance charges and other dues for Plot No.F-4, used by the petitioner company, in the SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 3. It has been stated that the maintenance charges for the year 2002-2003 had been fixed at Rs.1350/- per acre for the first half of the year 2002-2003. However, the maintenance charge had been fixed at Rs.11,000/-per acre for the second half of the said year, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. No guidelines had been followed by the respondents while fixing the maintenance charges and no reasons have been assigned for enhancing the maintenance charges from Rs.1350/- to Rs.11,000/-per acre. The maintenance charges fixed by the respondents should have a rational nexus to the amenities provided by the respondents to the industrial units concerned. Since the maintenance charges fixed by the respondents, with regard to the industrial unit of the petitioner, is arbitrary and unreasonable, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the respondents have provided various amenities to the industrial units in the SIPCOT, Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi. It has been stated that the water supply, sewerage, roads, street lights and other amenities, as well as all the necessary infrastructures in the SIPCOT Industrial estate at Gummidipoondi, are being maintained by the said Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu. The maintenance works are carried out in consultation with the Association during the maintenance committee meetings held every year. The maintenance charges for the year 2001-2002 (demand year 20022003) was fixed at Rs.2,700/- per acre and for the year 2002-2003 (demand year 20032004) the first half demand was raised during the month of July, 2003, at 50% of the previous years maintenance charge, as per the usual practice. The second half demand would be raised after finalising the maintenance charge. The second half demand would be raised after finalising the maintenance charge. The maintenance works are carried out with the consultation of the Association every year and the fixing of the maintenance charge is based on the maintenance expenditures incurred during the year. Therefore, there is no merit in the allegations and averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition. 5. In view of the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings, of the second respondent, dated 12. 2003. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf have not been refuted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.