TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders of eviction under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1976) Where as, I N.NACHIMUTHU, ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, City Crime Record Bureau, Tirunelveli City, Estate Officer, am of the opinion that the public premises Police quarters No.26, at Bharathi Nagar, Palayamkottai Taluk in Tirunelveli District, are under your unauthorised occupation since you were dismissed from service on 17.10.2012. I call upon you to show cause on or before ten days from the date of issue of this notice, why an order of eviction should not be made under sub-section(I) of section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1976)." 3. Assailing the correctness of the show cause notice, before the Writ Court, Mr.M.Sankara Subramanian/party-in-person, has contended that pursuant to a disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service by an order of the 3rd respondent/Deputy Commisioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City Police Office, Tirunelveli, on 18.10.2012. His appeal against the said order was rejected by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Polic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as he is not in service. It is well known that only the serving persons are allotted quarters and the persons who are dismissed or who retired from service could not occupy the Government quarters beyond the limit prescribed under the rules. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service as early as on 17.10.2012." 7. Mr.M.Sankara Subramanian, party-in-person, assailed the correctness of the order, made by the Writ Court, on the grounds inter alia that his review petition is still pending, on the file of the 1st respondent, for nearly 31 months. It is also his contention that despite his request, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the disposal of review petition, no proper information was given and therefore, he was constrained to approach the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission. 8. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, when the party- in-person, was posed with a question, as to why he has not enclosed the order dated 18.10.2012, by which, the 3rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City Police Office, Tirunelveli, had dismissed him from service, there was no answer. Going through the material on record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed a mercy petition to the Director General of Police, Chennai. Thereafter, he has filed W.P(MD)No.440 of 2005 challenging the abovesaid orders dated 17.09.2001, 05.11.2001 and 13.07.2002 respectively, of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities. 14. Adverting to the challenge made to the abovesaid orders, Writ Court vide order in W.P(MD)No.440 of 2005, dated 10.06.2009, set aside the aforesaid orders and directed that the appellant to be reinstated in service. By observing that a fair opportunity should be given to the appellant, the Writ Court directed the 4th respondent therein, to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law, so as to enable him, to participate in the enquiry. Writ Court further directed that procedure should be followed. 15. Not satisfied with the order made in W.P(MD)No.440 of 2005, dated 10.06.2009, the Director General of Police, Chennai, and three others have filed W.A(MD)No.721 of 2009. Adverting to the rival submissions of the parties therein, and while dismissing W.A(MD)No.721 of 2009 dated 09.02.2010, a Hon'ble Division Bench, directed the appellants therein, to issue notice to the party-in-person and to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son, has been dismissed, by order, dated 18.10.2012, passed by the 3rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City Police Office, Tirunelveli, is admitted. 21.As observed in the foregoing paragraphs, party-in-person himself, has admitted that police quarters is given, only to those police personnel, who are in service. From his own admission, it is evident police quarters is not given to those, who are not in service. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in service. The decision in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vs. Maddula Ratnavalli and others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 81, relied on by the appellant is inapposite to the facts of the case. Observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with reference to the facts of that case cannot be applied to the case on hand. 22. Placing on record the admission of the appellant that police quarters is given only to those in service, We only observe that whether the review petition is pending or not, Policemen who are not in service, have no right to squat over police quarters, intended to those who are in service. Writ against a show cause notice is not maintainable. (i) In Executive Engineer, Bihar State Hous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted." (iii) In N.Kailasam vs. Bar Council of India, reported in 2005 (4) SLR 754 (MAD(DB), a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- "It is well-settled that ordinarily no writ will lie against as show cause notice. A writ petition against a show cause notice is premature because no cause of action has arisen by a mere issuance of a show cause. The appellant can file his reply to the show cause notice, and if and when any adverse order is passed against him, it is at that stage that he can approac....