O R D E R

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Letter No.A16/2226/97 dated 31.07.2007 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.

2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer at second respondent PWD Department in Coimbatore between 2002 and 2004. In the year 2004, sometime in October, he was transferred to Chennai. During the stay at Coimbatore, while he was working at the second respondent office, he was alloted a rental quarters by the first respondent TNHB and in that quarters, he was residing till he was transfered to Chennai and after transferring to Chennai, according to the petitioner, on his transfer, his vacating the premises was informed to his employer, i.e., the second respondent, who in turn would have informed the first respondent to take possession of the quarters alloted to the petitioner.

Therefore, in this regard, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has got no option and wherever the petitioner was alloted, he had shifted his residence to Chennai.

3. In this context, however, according to the petitioner, the first respondent TNHB issued the impugned order dated 31.07.2007, stating that, the quarters had to be vacated in 2005 and till 2007 the quarters was not vacated. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,06,020/- being the rental amount has to be paid by the petitioner for 31 months at the rate of Rs.3,420/- per month. Out of the said amount, Rs.28,500/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Therefore, the remaining amount of Rs.77,520/- has to be paid along with the water charges of Rs.175/-. After paying the same, he should vacate the premises. This order was passed by the first respondent dated 31.07.2007 and the same is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

4. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, the moment the petitioner got transfered from Coimbatore to Chennai, i.e., in October 2004, he vacated the quarters and left Coimbatore and joined at Chennai. Thereafter, since the petitioner had already communicated the said development to the employer, i.e., the second respondent who in turn had also communicated the same to the first respondent TNHB, he was not responsible for paying any rent for the alleged period of 31 months till 2007, as stated in the impugned order dated 31.07.2007.

5. In this context, the learned counsel would submit that, subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer and on superannuation, retired from service in 2016. However, a sum of Rs.28,500/- was unjustifiably recovered from the petitioner and further a sum of Rs.77,520/- was sought to be recovered through the impugned order which was stayed in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the said demand made by the first respondent through the impugned order for recovering a sum of Rs.1,06,020/- being the alleged rent payable for 31 months is unlawful and unjustifiable, as there is no proof to show that, the petitioner overstayed in the quarters alloted to him, even after he was transfered to Chennai.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the amount already recovered from the petitioner's salary may be directed to be refunded to the petitioner, he contended.

7. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent TNHB by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit would submit that, the petitioner even though got transfered to Chennai in the year 2004, he did not immediately vacate the quarters and only in the year 2006, he sent a letter to the first respondent seeking permission of the first respondent to vacate the premises. However to the said letter, a reply communication has been sent to him, stating that, if at all he wants to vacate the quarters, the rent up to date, shall be paid with w