Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
U. Manickavel - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 2627 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 23-08-2022
For the Petitioner:M. Deivanandam, Advocate. For the Respondents:P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by S. Anitha, Special Government Pleader.
The court invoked the residuary relief clause to combat structural violations and protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Unauthorised Occupation of Police Quarters - Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, Rule 8 - The court discussed the unauthorised occupation of police quarters by higher officials, the abolition of the orderly system, and the misuse of police personnel for household work. It invoked the residuary relief clause to combat structural causes of violations and to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The court directed the eradication of the orderly system, withdrawal of orderlies deputed to retired officials' residences, initiation of actions for eviction from official police quarters, and enforcement of relevant laws and rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, was transferred to different locations but continued to occupy the official quarters in Chennai. The third respondent issued notices for eviction, which the petitioner contested, alleging violation of statutory procedures and lack of opportunity for a hearing. The court raised concerns about the misconduct of higher police officials in occupying quarters and using police personnel for household work.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unauthorised occupation of police quarters and the misuse of police personnel for household work by higher officials were systemic issues requiring intervention. It invoked the residuary relief clause to combat structural violations and protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
Issues: The issues included the unauthorised occupation of police quarters, violation of statutory procedures, and the misuse of police personnel for household work by higher officials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked the residuary relief clause to address systemic violations and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. It directed the eradication of the orderly system, withdrawal of orderlies deputed to retired officials' residences, initiation of actions for eviction from official police quarters, and enforcement of relevant laws and rules.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to eradicate the orderly system, withdraw orderlies deputed to retired officials' residences, initiate actions for eviction from official police quarters, and enforce relevant laws and rules. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to Form-C dated 07.01.2014 issued under Rule 8 of The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1978 by the third respondent herein.)
The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the Form-C dated 07.01.2014 issued under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1978.
Facts of the Case
2. The petitioner was allotted A6 Mylapore AC Quarters, Chennai and continued to occupy the same, when he was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range, Greater Chennai. The petitioner was transferred to Myladuthurai as Deputy Superintendent of Police and joined duty on 29.10.2012. He made a request for transfer to Chennai and it was considered and again he was transferred from Myladuthurai to District Crime Record Bureau, Kanchipuram District and he joined duty on 15.06.2013.
3. The family of the writ petitioner continued to reside in the official quarters allotted at A6 Mylapore AC Quarters, Chennai and the petitioner states that he had not availed any quarters in Kancheepuram District. The petitioner's children were studying at Pallikaranai and Sriperumpathur and the petitioner states that his wife was also undergoing periodical treatment.
4. The third respondent vide memo dated 22.10.2013 issued a show cause notice in Form-A under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 read with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1978. The petitioner submitted a reply by stating that he was posted at Kanchipuram District, which is 70 Kms away from Chennai and the jurisdiction of the Kancheepuram District is bounded on the OMR road upto Thazhampur Police Station, on the NH 45 upto Guduvancherry Police Station and upto Sriperumpathur Police Station limits all of which falls within 60 Kms from Chennai and therefore, he cannot be construed as an unauthorised occupant. The third respondent had not considered the explanations submitted by the writ petitioner and served Form-B under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1978, calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry. The petitioner had not attended the enquiry and sought for adjournment. However, the third respondent served Form-C dated 07.01.2014 on 21.01.2014, under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1978, to remove or cause to be removed, the property remaining in the subject premises within 14 days from the date of serving of the notice in default of which action to remove and dispose it of in public action.
5. The petitioner states that even if an order of eviction has been passed under Section 5 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, by the third respondent, it is in violation of the Statute, as no opportunity for reasonable hearing was given to the petitioner and no order of eviction was served to the writ petitioner. The mandatory requirement regarding the reasons has not been stated. Thus, the impugned Form-C is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity before issuing the impugned order. That apart, the petitioner has now vacated the official quarters at A6 Mylapore AC Quarters, Chennai and therefore, there is no reason to sustain the order impugned.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules were scrupulously followed. The petitioner has committed an illegality, which is otherwise not permissible under the Rules in force. Admittedly, the petitioner
