2016 (3) TMI 1234 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds show cause notice validity under Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act, dismisses appeal, no costs awarded

The court upheld the validity of the show cause notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, finding ... Writ against show-cause notice ordinarily premature - Jurisdictional challenge requires showing show-cause notice wholly without jurisdiction - Alternate statutory remedy to be availed before approaching High Court under Article 226 - Right to occupy government/police quarters confined to serving personnelWrit against show-cause notice ordinarily premature - Jurisdictional challenge requires showing show-cause notice wholly without jurisdiction - Alternate statutory remedy to be availed before approaching High Court under Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 11.12.2015 - HELD THAT: - The Court applied settled principles that ordinarily a writ petition is premature when directed only against a show-cause notice or charge-sheet, because such a notice does not by itself give rise to a cause of action unless it is wholly without jurisdiction. The judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court were relied upon to emphasise that, except in rare cases of total absence of jurisdiction, the affected person should respond to the notice and, if aggrieved by any final order, avail remedies of appeal/revision or thereafter approach the High Court. The material did not demonstrate that the impugned notice was in casu wholly without jurisdiction or non est in law, and no exceptional circumstance justifying pre-emptive quashing was shown. Accordingly interference was not warranted and the Writ Court's refusal to quash the notice was upheld. [Paras 22, 23]Writ petition challenging the show-cause notice is not maintainable and the impugned notice does not call for interference.Right to occupy government/police quarters confined to serving personnel - Whether the petitioner, having been dismissed from service (with review avenues exhausted or pending), had a right to continue occupying the police quarters - HELD THAT: - The petitioner admitted that police quarters are allotted only to serving police personnel. The Court reviewed the factual and procedural history showing departmental proceedings, earlier writ orders and subsequent dismissal by disciplinary authority, and noted the absence of material that the dismissal had been stayed or set aside. Even if a review petition is pending, mere pendency does not confer a right to occupy quarters intended for serving personnel. On these facts the Court held that persons not in service have no entitlement to 'squat' in police quarters and therefore the challenge to the eviction notice on this ground failed. [Paras 6, 21, 22]Petitioner, being not in service, has no right to occupy the police quarters and cannot sustain the challenge to the eviction notice on that basis.Final Conclusion: The High Court's order declining to quash the show-cause notice is sustained; the petitioner is directed to reply to the notice within the prescribed time and there is no interference with the issuance of the show-cause notice. No costs. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the show cause notice under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975.2. Right of a dismissed police officer to occupy police quarters.3. Maintainability of a writ petition against a show cause notice.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:The appellant challenged the show cause notice dated 11.12.2015 issued by the Estate Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Record Bureau, Tirunelveli City, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. The notice alleged unauthorized occupation of police quarters by the appellant since his dismissal from service on 17.10.2012. The court found no manifest error in issuing the show cause notice and stated that it did not call for any interference. The court emphasized that the show cause notice was not ex facie a 'nullity' or 'without jurisdiction.'2. Right of a Dismissed Police Officer to Occupy Police Quarters:The appellant contended that he was allotted police quarters while in service and challenged the show cause notice as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the court noted that police quarters are meant for serving personnel only. The appellant's dismissal from service was confirmed by the appellate authority, and the court held that the mere pendency of a review petition does not confer any right to occupy the quarters. The court recorded the appellant's admission that police quarters are intended for those in service, thereby invalidating his claim to continue occupying the quarters.3. Maintainability of a Writ Petition Against a Show Cause Notice:The court discussed various precedents, including Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohammed Ghulam Ghouse, and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, to conclude that ordinarily, no writ lies against a show cause notice. The court reiterated that a writ petition against a show cause notice is premature as it does not give rise to any cause of action unless the notice is issued by an authority without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the appellant should respond to the show cause notice and exhaust alternate remedies before approaching the court.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, sustaining the impugned order of the Writ Court. The appellant was permitted to submit his reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time. The court concluded that the show cause notice issued under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, did not warrant judicial interference and upheld the principle that writ petitions against show cause notices are generally not maintainable. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.