R PULIYOOR UDIYAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal pertains to the power of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Metropolitan City to order the payment of penal rent by a police officer who has overstayed in the police quarters allotted to him. The appellant, who joined the police service in the year 1995, was working as Inspector of Police in Narcotics Information Bureau/Crime Investigation Department between 25.9.96 and 3.7.97 and he was allotted the Sub Inspector quarters at Tiruvanmiyur. He was transferred as Instructor in Police Training College, Ashok Nagar, Chennai after 3.7.97 and he served in the said post between 4.7.97 and 30.10.99. However, he retained the quarters at Tiruvanmiyur. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways) and posted at Tiruchirapalli and he was working in the said capacity from 31.10.99 to 11.4.2000. Thereafter, he served as Assistant Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion III, Ulundurpet between 31.5.2001 and 8.8.2004 and served in the same capacity at Veerapuram, Chennai between 9.8.2004 and 30.11.2005. For the above period, he did not vacate the quarters in spite of the transfers. Hence, by the impugned order dated 30.10.2005, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,56,668/- towards penal rent. That order was questioned by the appellant on the ground that the Estate Officer appointed under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act would alone be competent and the order passed by the Commissioner of Police is therefore unsustainable. The writ petition on the above ground filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned single Judge, giving rise to the present writ appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

(3.) SECTION 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act defines "Estate Officer" as meaning, an officer appointed as such by the Government under Section 3. In terms of Section 3, the Government may by notification appoint such person to be an Estate Officer. In the case on hand, the Government has appointed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai as the Estate Officer and not the Commissioner of Police. By virtue of the provisions of Section 7, in the event there is any arrears of rent muchless any damages due to the unauthorised occupation of any public premises are to be recovered, it could be recovered only by issuance of a show cause notice in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 7 by the Estate Officer giving opportunity to such person and, after receiving the objections, may pass appropriate orders. In the absence of such power conferred on the Commissioner of Police, as admittedly it has been conferred on the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai to act as Estate Officer, the impugned order for payment of penal rent for unauthorised occupation is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, the order in the writ petition is also set aside. However, the order in the writ appeal shall not stand in the way of the Estate Officer, who is empowered to invoke the provisions of Section 7, to collect the penal rent for unauthorised occupation as he may deem it necessary. As it is now submitted that the entire penal rent had already been recovered, the Estate Officer is directed to take such action as he may deem it appropriate in a period of three months from today. We make it clear that in the event no such action is taken within this period, the appellant would be entitled to the refund of the amount already recovered by way of penal rent. With this observation and direction, the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. No costs.