LAWS(MAD)-1990-2-32

GUINDY MACHINE TOOLS PVT LTD Vs. GENERAL MANAGER P AND D STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMIL NADU LTD

Decided On February 21, 1990
GUINDY MACHINE TOOLS PVT.LTD. Appellant
V/S
GENERAL MANAGER(PANDD), STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMIL NADU LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Ashok Menon Advocate for the petitioner, the Court made the following order :- The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition an order passed by the Estate Officer under S.5 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1976. The contention of the petitioner is that the order cannot be treated as one falling under S.5 as no notice was given to him for personal hearing under Form 'B'. Learned counsel submits that the order directs the Authorised Officer to evict the petitioner herein on 5-2-1990, while the order itself was passed only on 29-1-1990. According to him, when the Act provides for an appeal and the time for an appeal is prescribed as thirty days, the order cannot cut short that time, by directing eviction within a period of one week. It is also stated that the order was sent by Registered Post from Hesur on 29-1-1990 and received by the petitioner actually on 2-2-1990.

(2.) I do not agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Even assuming that the facts stated by him are true, the order still falls under S.5 of the said Act. The remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal against that order under the provisions of the Act. It is, statutory remedy and there is nothing on record to show that it is not efficacious or too dilatory to grant quick relief to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner brings to my notice that at an earlier stage, when a notice was issued to him by the Estate Officer, he filed W.P. No. 1242 of 1990 for a writ of prohibition and get an order of injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing him. I had passed that order in W.M.P. No. 1912 of 1990 in W.P. No. 1242 of 1990, while ordering notice of motion, in the writ petition. The order was made by me on 2-2-1990, granting injunction till 21-2-1990, and it expires today. That does not affect the appealability of the impugned order.