Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order issued by the respondent in his proceedings C.P.O. No.1093/2005 RC.No.T3/20747/47/2005 dated 17-06-2005 and quash the same as illegal. 2. The petitioner is an Inspector of Police under suspension from 15-08-2004 passed by the respondent; that he is residing in the crime branch police quarters at No.32, T.P.K. Road, Madurai along with his family; that a show cause notice dated 01-04-2005 was issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be evicted from the said quarters within four days for the reasons mentioned below: - "4. Therefore, you are liable for eviction from the Government Quarters for your misconduct. You will offer your explanations as to why you should not be evicted from the Government Qrs. within 4 days from the date of receipt of this show cause notice. If you have not submitted your explanation within the stipulated time it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and action will be taken for the eviction." 3. Soon after receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 2995 of 2005 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25-04-2005. In the meantime, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 05-04-2005 requesting the respondent to permit him to continue in the said quarters, but the copy of the said reply is not filed before this Court. 4. Not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent herein has passed the order dated 17-06-2005, which is challenged in this writ petition. The relevant portion of the order dated 17-06-2005 is extracted hereunder: - "2. In the Chief Office Memo in RC No. 1053/21348/Bldgs'2 (1)/93 dated 11-01-1994, it is ordered that the Government Qrs. Is a facility offered to only officers and men and their family of good conduct and character and that the immoral conduct and behaving indecently towards women etc., will be considered as a violation entailing eviction. 3. The Addl. Supdt. Of Police, PEW, Madurai District has conducted personal enquiry on the allegation made by Tmt. Is a facility offered to only officers and men and their family of good conduct and character and that the immoral conduct and behaving indecently towards women etc., will be considered as a violation entailing eviction. 3. The Addl. Supdt. Of Police, PEW, Madurai District has conducted personal enquiry on the allegation made by Tmt. Jeyalakshmi, against the Police officials on the alleged offences of harassment, threatening, sexual exploitation and criminal offences. In the report in C.No. 74/ADSP/PEW/MDU/2004 dated 25-08-2004 and C.No.78/ADSP/PEW/ MDU/2004, dated 1.9.2004 the Additional Supdt. Of Police, PEW, Madurai District has reported that Thiru. V.M. Elangovan, Inspector of Police committed the delinquency of 'Highly reprehensible conduct and unbecoming of a responsible Police Officer in having illicit intimacy with Tmt. Jeyalakshmi, and thereby brought disrepute to the Police Force in the esteem of the Public and thus violated rule 23/27 of TNSPO Conduct Rules 1964'. 4. Further the Hon'ble High Court Madurai Bench has directed the C.B.I. To investigate the Maraneri P.S. Cr. No.97/2004 U/S 451, 365, 385 and 120 (B) IPC. Accordingly he has also been charge sheeted by the CBI." 5. Mr. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned in the impugned order without conducting any enquiry caused a stigma in petitioner, hence, the same is illegal; that when criminal case against the petitioner is pending, it cannot be construed as conviction, hence, the order of eviction is untenable; that the charges levelled against the petitioner is not tested or proved till date in the manner known to law, hence, the respondent ought not to have ordered eviction; that the subsistence allowance is not sufficient to maintain his family, while so, evicting the petitioner from the quarters and forcing him to occupy other rented house would cause hardship to the petitioner and prayed for quashing the impugned order. 6. Mr. Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent has issued a notice mentioning the reasons for eviction, gave opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order has been passed assigning valid reasons, hence, the grounds canvassed by the petitioner seeking to quash the same is not valid and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 mostly covers allottes of the Government Quarters. 7. The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 mostly covers allottes of the Government Quarters. The relevant portions of the said Act, which are essential for disposal of this writ petition are extracted hereunder: "2 (g) – "Unauthorised Occupation" in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever." 4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction - If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue, in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall- (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the estate officer knows or has reason to believe that any person is in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. 5. 5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants: (1) If, after considering the cause, if any shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction under sub-section (1), the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. 9. Appeals – (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under section 5 of section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the district in which the public premises are situated or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than such number of years standing as may be prescribed and as the district judge may designate in this behalf. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within such period as may be prescribed Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the prescribed period, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the estate officer, the appellate officer may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as he deems fit. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible. (5) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible. (5) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer. (6) For the purposes of this section, a presidency- town shall be deemed to be a district and the Chief Judge or the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court therein shall be deemed to be the district judge of the district. 10. Finality of Orders: - Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other appellate authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act." 8. In this case, though the petitioner was originally authorised to occupy the quarters, later, by notice dated 01-04-2005 the respondent has called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within four days stating that the Government Quarters is a facility offered to only officers and men and their family of good conduct and character and that the immoral conduct and behaving indecently towards women etc., will be considered as a violation entailing eviction. It is also stated in the said notice that the Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Madurai has conducted personal enquiry and reported that the petitioner allegedly committed the delinquency of highly reprehensible conduct and unbecoming of a responsible officer and having illicit intimacy with one Jeyalakshmi thereby brought disrepute to the police force and the esteem of the public and violated Rule 23 and 27 of TNSPO Conduct Rules, 1964. The petitioner also sent his reply, but the same was not produced before this Court for consideration, however, the respondent in the order of eviction has mentioned that the petitioner has requested to continue in the quarters, which was rejected. 9. Section 4 and 5 of the Act are required to be read together. The said sections deals with procedure for eviction of unauthorised occupants; that prima facie satisfaction of the respondent is a sine qua non of the issuance of the show cause notice. 9. Section 4 and 5 of the Act are required to be read together. The said sections deals with procedure for eviction of unauthorised occupants; that prima facie satisfaction of the respondent is a sine qua non of the issuance of the show cause notice. Prima facie satisfaction must be two fold, firstly, the petitioner has to be in unauthorised occupation of public premises and secondly he should be evicted. To satisfy the said two points, the underlining reasons in the notice as well as the order of eviction will demonstrate whether there is a proper application of mind, that the order is neither the result of caprice or arbitrariness nor the result of consideration of any non-germane or extraneous considerations. 10. In this context, when we look into Section 2 (g) of the Act, the unauthorised occupants means even the person who was allotted to occupy the premises has expired has been determined for any reason whatsoever. 11. It is seen from the said definition that once permission was determined for any reason whatsoever, who shall be deemed as unauthorised occupation. Section 4 cautions the officer while issuing notice to specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. 12. On a careful perusal of the notice issued by the respondents under Section 4 of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent also specified the reasons for eviction. 13. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely filing a case for certain allegations is not a ground for eviction until final verdict is delivered. A concession or benefit of occupying the Government quarters is attached with service, besides that the authority is empowered for the reasons assigned determine the licence or permission to occupy. Section 2 (g) of the Act does not specify any particular Act for determination of permission. It is also to be remembered that the authority cannot determine the permission accorded on flimsy reasons. Hence, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not valid. 14. Section 2 (g) of the Act does not specify any particular Act for determination of permission. It is also to be remembered that the authority cannot determine the permission accorded on flimsy reasons. Hence, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not valid. 14. The ingredients of Section 4 of the Act is that the Estate Officer is of opinion to cause a notice, shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction proposed to be made and call upon the said person concerned to say before such date, as is specified in the said notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issuing thereof. In this case, the respondent has granted only four days and it is stated that within that period, a reply was sent and thereafter writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the said notice, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25-04-2005. Hence, this Court holds that the respondent has not complied with Section 4 of the Act. 15. Section 5 of the Act says that after considering the cause, if shown by any person pursuant to notice under Section 4 of the Act and evidence he may produce in respect of the same, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the Estate Officer may make an order of eviction by reasons to be recorded thereon directing that the public premises has to be vacated on such date as may be specified in the order. 16. In this case, the respondent passed the impugned order on 17-06-2005 without hearing the petitioner personally, which is mandatory as per Section 5 of the Act, that too without specifying any date. It is necessary to mention that the petitioner was directed to vacate the quarters forthwith. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the respondent has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, hence, the impugned is set aside. It is made clear that this order will no fetter the hands of the respondent in initiating fresh action, if he deems it necessary. 18. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Connected WPMP is closed.