O R D E R

This writ petition is filed by one E.Muthu Kutty who seeks a direction to the second and third respondents, i.e, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Kamaraj Salai/R2 and the Superintendent/R3 to allot a house at Semmanchery to those persons affected by Tsunami.

2. In support of his claim the petitioner holds a letter from the first respondent dated 14.06.2019 which reads as follows:-

'jkpHe; hL Foirg;gFjp khw;W thhpak;

mDg;g[dh; bgWeh;

bghJ jfty; mYtyh;- ,/Kj;Jf;Fl;o.

fzf; hzpg;ghsh;. vz;/88-31. Rp/vk;/o/V.

v!n; ll; mYtyfk;?10. kzyp g[Jefh;.

jkpHe; hL Foirg;gFjp brdi; d?600 103/

khw;W thhpak;

brkk; "n; rhp. brd;id 119/

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

e/f/vz;/203-m-18-v/m/10 ehs; 14-06-2018 ma;ah.

bghUs; jfty; mwpa[k; chpik rl;lk; 2005 fHP ; jfty;

ntz;o bgwg;gl;l kDtpw;F jfty; mspj;jy;/

ghh;it 1/Kj;Jf;Fl;o kD ehs; 16/05/2018

2/j';fsJ kD ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F tugb; gw;w ehs; 06/06/18/

*****

jfty; mwpa[k; chpik rl;lk; 2005d; fPH; 16/05/2018 ehspl;l fojj;jpy; nflf; g;gl;Ls;sitfF; fHP ; fz;lthW jfty;

mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/

16/05/2018 ehspl;l fojj;jpy; brd;id rPdpthrg[uk;

F/vz;/580. 15TJ gpshff; pw;F vjphpy; Rdhkpahy; ghjpff; g;gl;Ls;sjhftk[ ; khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; 09/03/2018 ehspl;l mYtyf fojj;jpy; jdpahh; Vw;fdnt trpj;J te;jjhft[k; FoirgFjp khw;W thhpaj;jpd; brkk; "n; rhp jpl;lg;gFjpapy; fl;lg;gl;Ls;s tPLfspy; fjt[ vz; 5285I xJf;fPL bra;J jUkhW ghpe;Jiu bra;agg; l;Ls;sJ/

mjd; mog;gilapy; eltofi; f nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd;gJ bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/

bghJ jfty; mYtyh;-fzf; hzpg;ghsh; '

3. As per the aforesaid letter, tenement bearing No.5285 has been alloted to the petitioner and it is on this basis that the petitioner stakes his claim. The respondents, being R2 and R3, have categorically deny communication dated 14.06.2018. They outright state that the communication is incorrect and ought not to have been issued at all. According to them, the procedure followed by the Board is to allot tenements based on the recommendations made by the District Collector/R1.

4. In this case, a list of beneficiaries was forwarded by R1, wherein the name of the petitioner does not figure. A specific query was put to the learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 as to what is the procedure that is followed for identifying those affected by the Tsunami, on the basis of which allotments were made. Despite repeated requests, such a procedure has not been outlined and placed for appreciation by the Court.

5. Be that as it may, since the list of beneficiaries does not contain the name of the petitioner, the mandamus as sought for cannot be issued. This is also for the reason that the learned counsel appearing for the Board, on instruction, would submit that all tenements constructed at Semmanchery have been alloted already and no vacant tenement is available as no date.

6. The matter however cannot be closed for the reason that admittedly there is a communication issued under the auspices of the Board and signed by one R.Jayaraman indicating the allotment of a tenament stipulating the number as

5285.

7. Learned counsel for the Board was requested to find out whether all was well, in regard to the aforesaid communication and also the circumstances under which the aforesaid communication had been issued. He was also directed to ascertain whether the said officer is in service. He confirms that the officer has retired on 30.06.2019 and is no longer in service of the Board. The fact remains that the petitioner was in receipt of the aforesaid communication. This, coupled with the fact that there is apparently no scientific method that is followed for the listing of the beneficiaries to whom allotment of tenaments be made, persuades me to consider the case of the petitioner more sympathetically than I might have otherwise.

8. In the light of the aforesaid fact alone, I am inclined to direct the Board/Respondents to identify other suitable accommodation if available and communicate the same to the petitioner, withi