T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

(Prayer: APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 28.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.16134 of 2018 filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent under G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 29.01.2013 together with the consequential notices issued to the petitioners by the second respondent under letter No.GRS3/13211/2018-78 (464-C-AL5 – 606- C-C78) GRS3/13211/ 2018-43 (46C-AI10- 606-C-C43) GRS3/13211/2018-51 (464-D-AC18 – 606-D-D51) GRS3/13211/2018-111 (464-D-AE41-606D-D111) GRS3/13211/2018-27 (464-D-AB-23-606-D-D27) GRS3/13211/2018- 127 (464-D-AG-34-606-D-D127) and GRS3 (13211/2018-21 (464-CAA4-606C-C21) dated 05.06.2018, to quash the same.)

1. These appeals filed by the appellants/writ petitioners are directed against the common order dated 28.09.2018, by which, the writ petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, the matter was mentioned before the learned Writ Court and the case was listed under the caption “for being mentioned” and the contentions raised during such hearing were rejected by the learned Writ Court by order dated 07.02.2019.

2. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-Tamil Nadu Housing Board raised an objection stating that the appellants have not preferred any appeal against the substantive order passed in the writ petitions dated 28.09.2018 and the appeals have been preferred only against the order dated 07.02.2019 and therefore, the appellants cannot canvass the correctness of the order dated 28.09.2018 in these appeals.

3. Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is incorrect, since the appellants have challenged both the orders. It is further submitted that whenever the Court lists the matter under the caption 'for being mentioned' and a clarification is issued, that portion of the order will be incorporated in the substantive order initially passed and a certified copy would be given. However, in the appellants' case, the Registry had furnished a separate certified copy of the order dated 07.02.2019 and when the learned counsel for the appellants insisted for a certified copy of the original order dated 28.09.2018, incorporating the order dated 07.02.2019, they were informed that it will take substantial time and since there was threat of forcible dispossession from the housing accommodation, the appellants had to file these appeals challenging both the orders.

4. After hearing the learned counsels on the above objection, we perused the memorandum of grounds of writ appeals and we find that the appellants have challenged the findings rendered by the learned Writ Court in both the orders dated 28.09.2018 and 07.02.2019. Without going into the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellants, as to under what circumstances, two certified copies were issued, since the appeals were not barred by limitation and the grounds raised cover the findings in both the orders, we hold that the appeals are maintainable and the appellants can canvass the correctness of the orders dated 28.09.2018 and 07.02.2019.

5. Having found that the appeals are maintainable, we now proceed to examine the merits of the matter. The appellants filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 29.01.2013 and the consequential notice issued by the Executive Engineer cum Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai dated 25.05.2018. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 29.01.2013 is a policy decision taken by accepting the request made by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of 2522 units under the Tamil Nadu Government Rental Housing Scheme (TNGRHS); 1770 units under Self Financing Scheme (SFS) in Phase-I; 1124 units under TNGRHS; and 838 units under SFS in Phase-II; overall 6254 units in Chennai at an approximate estimated cost of Rs