The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of following the principles of natural justice before passing orders that affect the civil rights of individuals, unless specifically excluded by statutory provisions.

N. Paul vasanthakumar, J.

1. Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation of Chennai takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, first respondent as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent.

3. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order of eviction dated 7.9.2013 purported to be issued under Sections 220 read with Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 treating the petitioner as encroacher and she was asked to remove the encroached area of 165 Sq.Ft in Rajiv Gandhi Street in S.No.128/3 at Maduravoyal Village. In accordance with the notice, it is a road area vested with the Corporation and the petitioner has encroached in the public road as encroacher.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in occupation for over 30 years in the said area and she is having records to show that she is in possession of the said area. Her main grievance is that prior to order of eviction, no prior notice/show cause notice is issued to explain as to why the petitioner shall not be evicted and therefore principle of natural justice is violated as well as in violation of Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that no notice is contemplated under Section 222 of the said Act.

6. Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 reads as follows:

"222.Removal of encroachments: (1) The Commissioner may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar, or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or, over, any street (or any public place, the control of which is vested in the Corporation).

(2) If the owner or occupier of the premises proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give him a perspective title (or where such period is less than thirty years, for a period of thirty years) or that it was erected with the consent of any municipal authority duly empowered in that behalf, and that the period, if any, for which the consent is valid has not expired, the Corporation shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same."

7. From the perusal of the above statutory provision, it is not evident that there is prohibition to issue prior notice to the encroacher. The removal of encroachment order will definitely affect the civil rights of the person against whom such order is passed. It is well settled proposition of law, the principles of natural justice should be followed before proceeding against a person including a trespasser, unless it is prohibited under the statute.

8. The Supreme Court in the decision in the Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association (Regd.) and another v. State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 1117 stated the said principle. In paragraph No.15, it is held thus:

"15. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas no covered by any law validly made. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the body of persons appointed for that purpose. It is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohib