ALPHONSE Vs. COMMISSIONER PONDICHERRY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceeding No.891/PM/R.O II/Survey/08 dated 24.12.2008 and further direct the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry under the provisions of Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order dt. 24.12.2008 on the file of the First Respondent whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the property in T.S.No.H/1/10 Part with measurement 36.9 X 6.1 equivalent to 225.1 m2 in Pondicherry Municipality. Factual Matrix:

(2.) THE first respondent as per notice in form "A" dt.11.8.2008 initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 4.9.2008 and the same was received by the first respondent on 8.9.2008. Subsequently the second respondent as per notice dt. 7.11.2008 called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 13.11.2008. Since the petitioner was not in a position to appear on the date of enquiry, he submitted a letter of request for adjournment and the same was granted and enquiry was re-posted to 20.11.2008. Though the petitioner appeared in the office of the second respondent on 20.11.2008, no enquiry was conducted and there was no response either from the respondents or from their office and as such he left the office. In the meantime he received the impugned order dt. 24.12.2008 calling upon him to remove the encroachment within 35 days, and in the column earmarked for reasons, it was found mentioned as the failure of the petitioner to attend the enquiry. According to the petitioner, the property absolutely belongs to him and the same is also evident from prior legal proceedings. THErefore he seeks to quash the impugned order presumably on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THIRU. R. Natarajan, Learned Additional Government Pleader for Pondicherry submitted that the petitioner is in unlawful possession of Municipal land in a prime locality and it was only for the purpose of laying a road for the general public that the municipality initiated proceedings for eviction. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, there is no equity in favour of the petitioner, he being a rank trespasser. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his version and though he was called for an enquiry, he failed to appear and as such the authorities have no other option than to pass final orders and accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Analysis: