A.ARTHANAREESWARAN Vs. SALEM HOUSING UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Letters of the 1st respondent in No.G-3/1210/2011 dated 31.03.2011, No.G-3/1210/2011 dated 14.09.2011 and No.G-3/1210/2011 dated 07.10.2011. By letter dated 31.03.2011, a sum of Rs.54,744/- was ordered to be paid by the the petitioner for the period from June, 2009 to March, 2011 and the subsequent letter dated 14.09.2011 was issued for remittance of Rs.95,964/- towards arrears of rent and penalty for the period from June, 2009 to September, 2011 and vide final letter dated 07.10.2011, while declining the request of the petitioner for waiver off the penalty amount, a sum of Rs.1,02,834/- for the period between June, 2009 and October, 2011 was directed to be paid by the petitioner in a single lot.

(2.) It was the case of the petitioner that he has been working as Draughtsman Grade-III in Tiruppur Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur and while working in Salem, he was allotted a residential flat bearing No.A-3, B-Type, Judges Bungalow Colony, Salem 8 at the monthly rent of Rs.730/- including the amenity charge of Rs.65/-. It was further case of the petitioner that on 14.02.2010,he was temporarily transferred to Tiruppur and thereafter, a regular transfer order was issued to him on 13.05.2010, transferring him from Salem to Tiruppur. Since his children were studying in school, he was unable to vacate the quarters immediately and he had duly intimated about his vacation of quarters on 11.01.2011. It was also the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the request made by the 1st respondent, he had obtained the particulars regarding the recovery of rent from his department and submitted the same to the 1st respondent and on receipt of the same, the 1st impugned letter dated 31.03.2011 came to be issued to him calling upon him to remit a sum of Rs.54,744/- towards rent. It was stated that though he made several representations to the 1 st respondent and the State Level Authorities to waive the penal rent, his request was not considered and by subsequent letters dated 14.09.2011 and 07.10.2011, except enhancement of penal rent, no waiver of penal rent had taken place. Aggrieved by the action of the 1 st respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the particulars sought for by the 1st respondent were furnished by the petitioner, it was the 1st respondent, who unauthorizedly forced the petitioner to retain the allotment intact for the purpose of extraction of money from the petitioner. He further submitted that inspite of the fact that there was a provision to waive the penal rent under Salem Kamaraj Scheme, the 1st respondent prevented the petitioner from getting the benefit of such statutory scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of the Madras High Court Staff Association, Rep. by its Secretary, T.J.Lakshmipathi, Chennai-104 vs. Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 and others [W.P.No.36302 of 2008] decided on 19.01.2018 to strenuously argue that this Court, in a similar issue, permitted the allottee / employee therein, seeking permission for retention of accommodation, with a direction to the concerned Authorities to consider the request on merits and as per the Regulations and to issue suitable orders recording the reasons for retention or extension. Hence, it was argued that the case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically and the penal rent may be waived off.