IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.10.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR W.P.No.3869 of 2010 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 Bharat Sewak Samaj, rep. by its Pradesh Chairman, Thiru.P.A.Daivasigamani ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary and Commissioner, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 3. The Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writs of Certiorari, to call for the records to pass orders, dated 18.01.2010 Letter No.3/2010-2  S.L.A.C.-1, letter, dated 18.01.2010 No.115/09-5 S.L.A.C.-1 and quash the same. For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Gandhi, SC for Mr.G.K.Sekar For Respondents .. Mr.R.Murali, GA O R D E R Bharat Sewak Samaj represented by his Pradesh Chairman, has filed the present writ petition, challenging the letter, dated 18.01.2010, issued by the Secretary, Assembly Secretariat, taking over the possession of the premises, in which, the petitioner was having an Office. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a All India Non-Political Voluntary Social Service Organisation with its headquarters at New Delhi. It was founded by Late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on 12.08.1952 with its branches throughout the Country. The petitioner is an association of Social Workers with its object to promote the welfare activities and mainly training the youth, including the students for personality development. Affiliating themselves with voluntary NGOs, they have conducted many programmes. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Samaj was allotted two premises at Government House Estate, Rajaji Hall, Chennai and it has telephone, electricity and water supply connections. As the purpose, for which, it was established and having regard to the aim and objects, a minimal rent of Rs.10/- was collected from the petitioner. Though the petitioner has been in continuous possession and using the premises for good cause, conducting various programmes, along with social service organisations, the Secretary, Assembly Secretariat, Chennai, third respondent, issued a letter, dated 14.08.2007, requesting the petitioner to hand over the premises, in which, Samaj was functioning, on or before 15.11.2007, on the ground that it was needed for the new assembly complex works department. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that in response, the Pradesh Chairman, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Samaj met the Hon'ble Minister for Public Works Department, Tamil Nadu, and submitted a petition, dated 02.09.2007 to provide an alternative accommodation to enable the Samaj to continue its activities. According to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Minister assured them to provide an alternative accommodation. 5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that they also met the Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, the second respondent herein, in this regard and submitted a petition. As per the earlier proceedings, dated 01.04.2003, a Demand Draft, dated 11.04.2008 was drawn in favour of the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Government House Sub Division, Chennai-2, towards the rent for one year and that it was sent along with their letter, dated 11.04.2008. The rent remitted by them was returned on 27.05.2008. However, a reply, dated 05.06.2008, was sent by the petitioner. 6. While that be so, on 10.06.2008, around 4.00 p.m., the officials of the respondents, without notice to the petitioner, forcibly entered into the premises and took away the valuable articles, furnitures, records, fans, tube lights, etc. According to them, the value of the items, runs to several lakhs of rupees. It is the further case of the petitioner that within few hours, they demolished the entire premises of the Samaj and put down the entire structure to ground level. Shocked by the action of the officials, the petitioner appealed to the Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department and also met the Hon'ble Minister on 27.06.2008. 7. The petitioner has further submitted that All India Women's Council was running a School within the premises of the Government House Estate, Chennai and that they were served with a similar notice, to vacate from the premises. When the women's council challenged the said order by way of a writ petition, the respondents had given an alternative accommodation to the School. It is the grievance of the petitioner that by not providing an alternative accommodation, the petitioner has been discriminated. As the premises granted to the petitioner was pulled down to the ground level, the petitioner decided to convert the second premises allotted to them at the Rajaji Hall, as their Office. 8. According to them, all these days, the second premises was used only as a store room, to store the materials, such as clothes, food materials, books, furniture etc. Earlier, the said premises had no electricity connection, but lateron, the petitioner had spent about Rs.3 lakhs by putting up the electrical fittings, paintings and such other works for converting it for office use. While the position stood thus, the officials of the third respondent, again issued a letter, dated 23.10.2009, directing the petitioner to vacate from the premises in Rajaji Hall. The said hall is a monument and maintained by Information Public Department. According to them, the third respondent has no right over Rajaji Hall premises. 9. It is the further contention that taking the law into their own hands, the officials of the third respondent tress-passed into their premises, in which, their Office was functioning, demolished the entire structure and being aggrieved by the same, they sent a letter, dated 14.11.2009, to the third respondent, explaining the position, for which, there was no reply. About a month's later, the third respondent, by letter, dated 21.12.2009, informed the petitioner that the premises was to be used for extension of D7 Police Station and therefore, it was immediately required. Subsequently, another letter was sent on 26.12.2009, directing the petitioner to vacate by 30.12.2009, though it was over- locked. Thereafter, by impugned letter, dated 18.01.2000, the Secretary, Assembly Secretariat, Chennai, informed the petitioner that they have taken possession of the premises and that the Samaj can take back its belongings on any working day. 10. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has further contended that even if the occupation of the petitioner has to be construed was even constructed as unauthorised, the respondents ought to have provided a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, by issuing a notice, as per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 and that the said notice can only be issued by the Estate Officer, appointed under Section 8 of the said Act. The petitioner has therefore submitted that as the said mandatory provision has not been followed, any directions issued by the third respondent, directing the petitioner to vacate from the premises, by an incompetent authority and is without jurisdiction and therefore, they cannot be acted upon. According to the petitioner, only after considering the objections of the writ petitioner, appropriate orders can be passed under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 11. Referring to Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the power to issue notice is vested only with the Estate Office under Section 5(2) of the Act and the action taken by the Assembly Secretariat, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. He also submitted that putting a double lock on the premises, already allotted to the writ petitioner- Samaj does not lack any legal sanity and it is an interference with the right of the Samaj to occupy and use the premises for the purpose for which, it was granted. 12. On the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Secretariat, Mr.R.Murali, learned Government Advocate submitted that Bharat Sevak Samaj had earlier occupied a room in the ground floor of Rajaji Hall and there was no proper order. It was in a ruined stage and locked for a long time. No rent was paid by the Samaj, either to the Secretariat or to the Government for the occupation of the said room. 13. On the basis of the averments in the counter affidavit, learned Government Advocate denied the contention of the petitioner that they were given two places. According to the third respondent, as per the records, no allotment order was issued to the petitioner for the premises in Rajaji Hall. Even for the erstwhile premises, which was in occupation of the Samaj, the petitioner had not paid even the minimal rent periodically. He further submitted that the default in payment of rent is also fortified, by the fact that only after issuance of the notice, directing them to vacate, a demand draft was sent by the petitioner. 14. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that a new Legislative Assembly complex was required to be constructed immediately and within a time frame and that therefore, the Assembly Secretariat decided to renovate the room and handover to the same to D7 Police Station. In this regard, vide letter, dated 23.11.2009, the petitioner was directed to vacate the room immediately. 15. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that except the petitioner, no other governmental organisation was located in the new Legislative Assembly complex area. Though notice was served on 27.10.2009, at Door No.53, Armenian Street, Chennai-1, there was no reply from the Samaj and in such circumstances, the room was double locked on 30.10.2009 by the officials of Assembly Secretariat. The Samaj was reminded again on 09.11.2009 to vacate the premises. In response to the same, the Samaj requested the Assembly Secretariat to remove the double lock. Having regard to the immediate necessity and to provide a room for security reasons, urgent orders were obtained from the Hon'ble Speaker for removal of certain belongings of the writ petitioner and accordingly, by letter, dated 18.01.2010, the Samaj was requested to collect their belongings. 16. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the new Secretariat premises was to be opened on 13.03.2010 and inspite of many requests, the petitioner insisted for an alternative accommodation, without considering the security reason and therefore, possession of the above mentioned room was to be necessarily to be taken on 09.01.2010 for the above said reasons. According to the learned Government Advocate, double locking and vacating the Samaj from the room were done, due to the situation which prevailed at that point of time and mainly for the security reasons and the urgency involved in completion of the project and to provide additional accommodation to D7 Police Station. According to State counsel, the action of the Assembly Secretariat, cannot be said to be arbitrary, high-handed or with a deliberate intention to contravene any of the provisions of the the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 17. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the writ petitioner has no legal right to insist to remain in possession of a room, inside the new legislative assembly complex, causing inconvenience. It is also his further contention that though the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1975, may not in strict sense, be said to have been violated, as the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity before taking over possession of the room. 18. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that even assuming, without argument sake, that the petitioner was allowed at some point of time to use the premises, within the Legislative Assembly compex, on receipt of rent, that would not clothe him any right to seek for alternative accommodation. Just because, the petitioner was permitted to use the premises for Office purpose and other activities, they cannot prevent the government from vacating them from the premises, when a project of constructing a new Legislative Assembly Complex was to be completed within a time schedule. Referring to the date scheduled for opening of the new assembly complex, i.e., 13.03.2010, learned Government Advocate further submitted that there was urgency in completing the project and handing the room to the police station for security purposes. As the petitioner was already given sufficient notices to vacate, it is not open to them to contend that there is violation of the principles of natural justice or prejudice. 19. In sum and substance, learned Government Advocate submitted that whether the notice is issued under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1975, by the Estate Officer or by any other competent authority under whose control, the new Legislative Assembly area was to be constructed, the object is only compliance of the principles of natural justice, over which, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. In such circumstances, he submitted that there is substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order issued by the third respondent is valid and within his jurisdiction. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 20. The contention of the petitioner that it is a non-political voluntary social service organisation, started by the Former Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, on 12.08.1952, which has branches through out the country has not been disputed. Though the petitioner has contended that they were allotted two places in the Government Estate, where they put up their Office and for other meaningful activities, carried on by the Government, the said contention has been denied in the counter affidavit. However, materials on record shows that on 14.08.2007, the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Government House Sub Division, Chennai-2, has written a letter to the Hononary Secretary and Treasurer, Bharat Sevak Samaj, Chennai-2, stating that the Government of Tamil Nadu, has decided to construct the new complex for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in Omandur Government Estate, Chennai-2, as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.209, Public Works (H1) Department, dated 04.07.2007 and the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD., has further stated that the buildings occupied by the petitioner-Samaj lies within the area as demarcated in the proposed new Assembly Complex and in view of the decision of the Government, he was directed by the Government to inform that the petitioner-Samaj, functioning inside the Government Estate Campus Buildings, may look for alternative space and that the premises of the Samaj may be handed over to the Public Works Department, on or before 15th November' 2007 for proceeding further with the construction of new Legislative Assembly Complex. 21. In response to the same, the petitioner-Samaj, by their reply, dated 02.09.2007, addressed to the then Hon'ble Minister for PWD and Law, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, has explained the activities of the Samaj and stated that the Samaj premises is a part of Rajaji Hall. It is in front of the gate, known as "Guard Room". If the building, in which, the Samaj is located and AIWC building are demolished, then the grand look of Rajaji Hall and heritage would be lost. The petitioner has also stated that the premises is very small in nature, measuring 35" x 50" and if the Government still intends to demolish the building, then an alternative accommodation in the Estate, should be given. At this juncture, it should be noted that the petitioner's intention was only to get an alternative accommodation inside the Government Estate and there was no serious objection for taking over the building by the respondents. 22. Subsequently, the petitioner has sent a Demand Draft, dated 11.04.2008, towards rent, by referring to a letter of the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Government House Sub Division, Chennai-2. On receipt of the letter and the Demand Draft towards rent, the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Government House Sub Division, Chennai-2, has sent a reply, dated 27.05.2008, to the Secretary of the petitioner-Samaj, expressing regret for not taking any steps to vacate and handover possession of the premises. He has returned the demand draft. In his reply, the Assistant Engineer, has also pointed out that demolishing of buildings inside Omandur Government Estate had already commenced, pursuant to the administrative orders to construct a new Assembly Complex. 23. Instead of handing over vacant possession, citing an assurance said to have been given to AIWC School, for an alternative accommodation, the petitioner has requested the above said authority to receive the rent. At this juncture, it is to be noted that though proceedings, dated 15.08.2007, were initiated by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division, Chennai and repeated requests were made to the Samaj to hand over the premises to the Public Works Department for proceeding further with the construction of a new Legislative Assembly Complex, the Samaj had not handed over possession and in the mean while, having regard to the necessity, the third respondent has demolished the building during April' 2008. 24. Now, for the first time, after two years, in October' 2009, the Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, steps in the picture and by letter, dated 23.10.2009, makes a request to the petitioner- Samaj to vacate and hand over the room in the Ground floor of Rajaji Hall for security purposes. Again by letter, dated 09.11.2009, the Assembly Secretariat has sent another letter of the petitioner to hand over possession to Secretariat. In response to the above letters, the petitioner-Samaj has sent a reply, dated 14.11.2009, to the Secretary, Assembly Secretariat, stating that Rajaji Hall is under the control of the Information and Public Department and that the petitioner-Samaj was granted building and two rooms, with toilet in the Government Estate, way back in year 1950. Per contra, it is the contention of the third respondent that the petitioner-Samaj occupied a small room in the ground floor of Rajaji Hall, for which, there was no proper order. The room was in a ruined stage, locked for a long time, without being utilised and that no rent was paid by the Samaj either to the Secretariat or to the Government for its occupation. Though the petitioner has contended that the said room was in their occupation for a long time, no materials have been placed before this Court to prove that the petitioner was a lessee or permitted to occupy the said room under any valid order. 25. Again though the petitioner has contended that the officers of the third respondent has forcibly pulled down the structure, perusal of the letter, dated 14.10.2009, does not indicate that there was any complaint of forcible eviction and pulling down the structure, where their Office was stated to have been functioned. In the letter, dated 14.11.2009, the petitioner-Samaj has stated as follows: "However, due to the New Assembly complex the said premises was vacated and the present place which was used as a material room, at the Rajaji Hall was renovated at the cost of Rs.3 Lakhs including plastering of the walls painting, electrification was done. However, the said arrangements were made with the permission of Information and Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu." 26. Again to prove that permission was given by the Information and Public Department, no material document has been placed before this Court. On the other hand, has questioned the authority of Assembly Secretariat regarding the issuance of the notices, contending that the Rajaji Hall Building comes under the control of Information and Public Department. Here again, no materials have been placed before this Court to prove that the building was under the control of Information and Public Department, after the commencement of the construction for New Assembly building. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, that no governmental organisation, except Bharat Sevak Samaj (petitioner herein) has the room locked in the new Assembly Complex area and for the security purposes, the Secretariat had decided to renovate the room and handover the same to D7 Police Station by vacating the premises immediately. As the room was closed for a long time and inasmuch as there was no reply for the letters, dated 21.12.2009 and 26.12.2009, the room was double locked on 30.10.2009. 27. Though the petitioner has contended that without giving any notice, the officials of the third respondent had put a double and also alleged commission of tress-pass and mischief, and other offences, punishable under the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the view that the action of the third respondent cannot be termed to be high handed, mala fide. 28. The sequence of events from 14.08.2007 till 30.10.2009 shows that the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Government House Sub Division, Chennai-2, had been requesting the petitioner- Samaj to vacate the buildings, functioning in the Government Estate and to look for an alternative place. For nearly two years, there had been exchange of correspondences between the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Government House Sub Division, Chennai-2 and the petitioner and the petitioner-Samaj had been harping on alternative accommodation, which claim has no statutory basis. Only after two years of prolonged correspondence, left with no other option, the Assembly Secretariat steps in, having regard to the urgency involved in the completion of the project and for security reasons and also to provide additional accommodation to D7 Police Station, in view of the opening of the new Secretariat premises on 13.03.2010. 29. Material on record further discloses that the Assembly Secretariat on 21.12.2009, has requested the President to petitioner-Samaj, to handover the room for extension of D7 Police Station and for security purposes for new Legislative Assembly. Again on 26.12.2009, the Assembly Secretariat has written a letter to the petitioner, stating that the entire ground floor in Rajaji Hall, as well as the room in occupation of the Samaj had been allotted to the Police Department and in order to put up a compound wall to prevent public from using the entire area, the Samaj was directed to remove the old tables, chairs, etc., before 30.12.2009. 30. It could be deduced from the letters, dated 21.12.2009 and 26.12.2009, that as the construction of new Legislative Assembly premises has to be completed and sufficient security measures have to be made by the Assembly Secretariat for opening of the Assembly building on 13.03.2010, the third respondent has been constrained to send the letters, directing the petitioner-Samaj to vacate the room and handover the same to the Secretariat, so as to enable them to put up a compound wall and to secure the premises and prevent public from using the same. Despite the urgency and the necessity, i.e., for security purposes, the petitioner-Samaj has not handed over the room. Having regard to the urgency, after obtaining appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Speaker to get possession of the land and accordingly, by letter, dated 18.01.2010, the third respondent, has sent the impugned communication to the writ petitioner. Simultaneously, on the same day, a letter has been sent to the writ petitioner, stating that since the Samaj did not vacate the premises, till 30.12.2009 and hand over the same to the Secretariat, after obtaining the necessary orders from the Hon'ble Speaker, possession has been taken by the Assembly Secretariat and the petitioner was also instructed to take back the properties of the Samaj. 31. As stated supra, though the petitioner has contended that they were allotted two premises in Government House Estate, Rajaji Hall, Chennai, no documents have been filed before this Court to prove that the room in question was allotted by any competent authority. The rent stated to have been tendered by way of Demand Draft also do not support the contention that it was paid towards the rent for the said room. However, there cannot be any dispute that the premises, viz., Government Estate is a public premise, belonging to the Government. 32. "Unauthorised occupation" as per Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, in relation to any public premises, means, "the occupation by any person of the public premises without the authority for such occupation and includes the continous occupation by any person of the public premises, after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed