The judgment emphasized the importance of the affected person's objection or explanation in influencing the decision-making process, as per the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in RC 5861/2009/SF 1 dated 22.09.2016 confirming the proceedings issued by the first respondent in RC.No.5861/2009 SF 1 dated 19.07.2010 and quash the same.)

1. The writ petition has been filed by the original allottee of a housing plot from the second respondent Housing Society.

2. The Society has executed an order of allotment in favour of the ancestor in title of the writ petitioner on 20.06.1985. Thereafter, a sale deed has also been executed in favour of the ancestor in title of the writ petitioner namely one S.Muthu Karuppan. The said sale deed has been cancelled by the Housing Society on 28.11.1994 on the ground that the allottee has not put up construction within a period of two years as contemplated in the bylaws of the Society.

3. The Co-operative Housing Society after cancelling the sale deed in favour of the Muthu Karuppan, has executed another sale deed in favour of one A.V.Thiyagarajan. The said A.V.Thiyagarajan has executed a power deed in favour of one Muthu Krishnan on 22.01.2004. The said power agent Muthu Krishnan has executed a sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent on 09.12.2004.

4. The legal heirs of the original allottee have raised an objection for cancellation of the allotment order for the first time on 08.04.2002 by filing an application before the Deputy Registrar (Housing). The said application was returned by the second respondent on 18.10.2002 citing certain defects. On 20.10.2005, a proceeding was issued by the second respondent herein calling for objection from the original allottees whose allotment orders were cancelled. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has filed his objection. After hearing the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent herein, the second respondent herein has passed an order on 18.05.2009 invoking the provisions of Section 90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. As per the said order, the second respondent has arrived at a finding that before cancelling the sale deed, no proper notice has been issued to the original allottee namely Muthu Karuppan. On the said finding, the second respondent has allowed the application thereby registering the allotment in favour of Muthu Karuppan.

5. The said order was challenged by the fourth respondent herein before the first respondent by way of a revision. By an order dated 19.07.2010, the first respondent passed an order holding that proper notices have been issued to the ancestor in title of the writ petitioner. That apart, the original allottee has not informed his change of address and hence, the cancellation of the allotment order for not constructing a house within a period of two years is correct. On the said finding, the first respondent reversed the order passed by the second respondent. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a review before the first respondent. The Review Application was dismissed on 22.09.2016 by the first respondent. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 19.07.2010 and the review the order passed by the first respondent on 22.09.2016.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that at the time of allotment of plots, the original allottee Muthu Karuppan was working in Karaikudi. Thereafter, he got transferred to Madurai. The sale deed has been executed in favour of Muthu Karuppan on 03.01.1986. Even in the said sale deed, only Madurai address has been mentioned. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of cancellation dated 28.11.1994 has been passed without any notice or enquiry. He had further contended that a paper publication has been made on 29.11.1994 with regard to cancellation of the allotment order of various persons. However, the name of the original allottee namely Muthu Karuppan is not fou