ANTHONY HARRY Vs. REGISTRAR OF CITY CIVIL COURT AND ESTATE OFFICER (ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND PRO TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Service and he was occupying the quarters at 1/1, H-5, Cross Road Quarters, New Washermanpet, Chennai-81. On 14.12.2000, in front of his house, the petitioner fired Air Gun shots at a boy aged about 16 years and caused injuries to him, regarding which a case was filed against the peitioner in C.C. No. 2997/2000 and he was also suspended from service. On 8.1.2000, the Commissioner of Police directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet to evict the petitioner from the Official Quarters. Since the petitioner did not vacate, Form-A Notice under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act was issued by the Estate Officer and the same was served on him and he did not appear for enquiry and no explanation was sent by the petitioner. The Estate Officer passed the Eviction Order on 22.2.2000, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession before 29.2.2000. Since the petitioner did not vacate the quarters, eviction proceedings were taken on 3.3.2000. The petitioner and his family members were not present and the second respondent broke open the lock of the premises and after taking inventory of the articles, sealed the quarters in the presence of witnesses. Challenging the eviction order, the petitioner has preferred C.M.A. No. 87/2000 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. In consideration of the materials and submissions, the learned Judge had dismissed the appeal observing that since despite opportunities, the petitioner did not vacate the premises, the Estate Officer had broken open the lock and sealed the main door, after taking inventory of the articles found inside the premises. Challenging the order passed in CMA, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an order of stay of suspension order has been passed by the Tribunal. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, attaches finality to the orders passed by the Estate Officer or Appellate Authority. The learned single Judge on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, holding that as the order of the Principal Judge is final, there is no scope for invoking the writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.