IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.2.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1204 of 2006 1 R. PULIYOOR UDAIYAN S/O. RAMALINGAM 23B POLICE QUARTERS THIRUVANMIYUR. PETITIONER Vs 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EGMORE CHENNAI-8. RESPONDENTS Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to R.C.No.Building 1 (1)/69/10407/2005/City Police Order No.2701/2005 dated 30.10.2005 from the file of the respondent to quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.A.S.Narasimhan For respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate O R D E R The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows: At the time of the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Commandant for Battalion III of the Tamil Nadu Special Police. In the year 1995, after he had joined in the Police Subordinate service, he was working as an Inspector of police, in Narcotics Information Bureau, Crime Investigation Department, between 25.9.1996 and 3.7.1997. At that time, the respondent had allotted the Sub Inspector quarters, at Thiruvanmiyur, to the petitioner, instead of the Inspector quarters for which the petitioner was eligible. 2. The petitioner had continued to occupy the quarters allotted to him, till 3.7.1997. Thereafter, he had been transferred and posted as an Instructor in the Police Training College, Chennai. He had worked as an Instructor, between 4.7.1997 and 30.10.1999. Since, the petitioner had been retained in the city of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai, he was not asked to vacate the quarters allotted to him. While so, he was promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police and posted to the Railways, at Tiruchy, on 31.10.1999. He had continued as such, till 11.4.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner had been transferred to the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, and he was working there, from 20.4.2000 to 27.4.2001. While so, he had approached the respondent to regularise his occupation of the Quarters. 3. The petitioner had received a communication, dated 8.8.2000, allowing him to occupy the Chennai City Police quarters, so long as he was based in the City Headquarters Units. However, it had stated that the market rate of rent should be recovered from him for the entire period during which he was working in the Railways, at Tiruchy, i.e., from 31.10.1999 to 31.1.2000. 4. On 21.2.2005, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the quarters. It had also been stated that penal rent would be collected from the petitioner, if he continued to occupy the quarters, unauthorisedly. The petitioner had sent a reply stating that he is eligible to occupy the quarters, as he was employed in one of the units, under the respondent, having headquarters at Chennai. He had also stated in his explanation that the penal rent had already been waived, in respect of various other persons, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.859, Home, (POL X IV) dated 17.9.2002. However, the respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, had issued an order, dated 31.10.2005, stating that penal rent would be recovered from the petitioner, for the period 4.7.1997 to 8.8.2004, amounting to Rs.1,56,668/-, including the penal rent, from 9.8.2004 to the date of the filing of the writ petition. Further, the respondent had cancelled the allotment of the quarters and had instructed the Estate Officer, appointed by the State, to initiate the eviction proceedings against the petitioner. 5. The order of the respondent had been communicated to the petitioner, on 14.12.2005. Thereafter, on 21.12.2005, the amount was directed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner payable for the month of December, 2005. Thereafter, on 30.10.2005, an order had been issued, cancelling the allotment of the quarters, made in favour of the petitioner and ordering the recovery a sum of Rs.1,56,668/- from the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that even though the petitioner had been allowed to occupy the sub inspector quarters, initially, he could not have continued to occupy the same, while he was serving as an Instructor at the police training college, Chennai. Further, when he had been transferred to Ulundurpet, he should have opted to occupy the quarters at Ulundurpet. It had also been stated that by a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.859, Home, (Pol XIV), dated 17.9.2002, certain police personnel had been exempted from payment of penal rent, citing the orders of the Chief Minister in a press release No.550, dated 19.8.2002, by the Director of Information and Public Relations. However, the petitioner cannot claim any legal right based on the said Government order, for being exempted from the payment of penal rent. 7. It had also been stated that as soon as the petitioner had been transferred to the Tamil Nadu Special Police, he should have applied for the allotment of quarters at Veerapuram. Since, the petitioner had continued to occupy the quarters, unauthorisedly, a notice had been issued, on 21.11.2005, by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, the respondent herein, and the petitioner was directed to pay the penal rent of Rs.1,56,668/-. By a memo, dated 8.12.2005, issued to the petitioner through the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, it had been directed that the penal rent should be deducted from the salary of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the order of the respondent is without jurisdiction. As the occupation of the quarters by certain similarly placed police personnel had been regularized and when the Government had waived the penal rent payable by them, the same yardstick should have been used in the case of the petitioner as well. Any discrimination against the petitioner would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel had further submitted that the respondent cannot terminate the occupation of the quarters by the petitioner, without providing alternative accommodation. Further, the impugned order of the respondent is contrary to Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, which enables the Estate Officer to claim the rent due from the occupants and to claim damages. The respondent cannot exercise such a power by issuing the impugned order. 10. In view of the averments made on behalf of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent and in view of the contentions raised on their behalf, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the respondent, dated 30.10.2005. 11. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the respondent does not have the power to issue the impugned order. Though it is the claim of the petitioner that it is only the concerned Estate Officer, who has the power to issue an order of eviction, under the provisions of the the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, the Estate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer has not been made a party to the present proceedings in the present writ petition. While, it is not in dispute that, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, the Estate Officer may require the person in occupation to pay the arrears of rent payable, in respect of public premises, it cannot be said that the Commissioner of police, the respondent herein, who is the allotting authority, and the cancelling authority, in respect of the police quarters, cannot claim the rental arrears. Further, the petitioner would be liable to pay the penal rent, if he had been in unauthorised occupation of the quarters in question. The petitioner cannot rely on G.O.Ms.No.859, Home, (POL XIV) dated 17.9.2002, as it had been issued only in respect of certain police personnel, as shown in the annexures to the said Government order. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.1347 of 2006 is closed. Sd/ Asst Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst Registrar lan To THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EGMORE CHENNAI-8. +1 CC to Government Pleader Sr. No.13775 +1 Cc to Mr. A.S. Narasimhan Advocate Sr.No.13004 Writ Petition No.1204 of 2006 ( CO-KJI) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/