2016 (3) TMI 1234 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Show cause notice issued by Estate Officer Assistant Commissioner of Police City Crime Record Bureau Tirunelveli City - Held that - Show cause notice dated 11.12.2015 issued under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1976) in our view does not call for any interference. There is no manifest error in issuing a show cause notice. The impugned order of the Writ Court is sustained. The only course open to the party-in-person is to submit his reply to the show cause notice. Hence while dismissing the appeal we permit the party-in-person to submit his reply to the show cause notice within the time provided therefore.

Summary

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.