Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st Respondent in C.M.A.No.87/2000 dated 07.09.2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to restore the possession of the premise situate at 1/1, H-5, Cross Road Quarters, New Washermanpet, Chennai-81 in favour of the Petitioner.) The Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the orders passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court in C.M.A.No.87/2000 dated 07.09.2000, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer/ Assistant Commissioner of Police [PRO] and quash the same. 2. Relevant facts are as follows – The Petitioner is an Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Service. He was occupying the quarters at 1/1, H-5, Cross Road Quarters, New Washermanpet, Chennai-81. On 04.12.2000, 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 Petitioner in C.C.No.2997/2000. The Petitioner was also suspended from service. On 08.01.2000, the Commissioner of Police directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet to evict the Petitioner from the Official Quarters. Memo was issued to the Petitioner to vacate the Quarters. Since the Petitioner did not vacate, Form – A Notice under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises [Eviction of unauthorized Occupants] Act, [for short, 'the Act'], was issued by the Estate Officer and the same was served on the Petitioner. Form – B Notice was served upon the Petitioner's wife on 15.02.2000. The Petitioner did not appear for enquiry and no explanation was sent by the Petitioner. The Estate Officer passed the Eviction Order on 22.02.2000, directing the Petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession before 29.02.2000. 3. Since the Petitioner did not vacate the quarters, eviction proceedings were taken on 03.03.2000. 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. 4. Challenging the Eviction Order, the Petitioner has preferred C.M.A.No.87/2000 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 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. 4. 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 dismissed the Appeal finding that all the mandatory procedures, as contemplated under the Act, have been followed. The learned Judge has observed 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. 5. In the appeal, the learned Judge has directed the Estate Officer to remove the seal put up in the premises, for the limited purpose of allowing the Petitioner to take the articles belonging to him, which are inside the petition premises. 6. Challenging the order in C.M.A., the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that an order of stay of Suspension Order has been passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is pending and hence, the Petitioner should be deemed to be in service. It is urged, the Petitioner cannot be stated to be in unauthorized occupation of the premises and the order in C.M.A.No.87/2000 is vitiated for non application of mind on this aspect. 7. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that eviction has already been effected and that the pendency of the Writ Petition challenging the suspension would not in any way be an impediment for the eviction proceedings. 8. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, attaches finality to the orders passed by the Estate Officer or Appellate Authority. When the order of the Principal Judge is final, what is the scope of the Writ jurisdiction, is the point falling for consideration. 9. Against the orders of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority, the High Court will not sit as Court of appeal. Under Writ jurisdiction, the Court has to ascertain whether the Principles of Natural Justice were followed and has to see whether the Authority below has not exceeded its jurisdiction and whether fair and proper opportunity has been given to the Petitioner. Under Writ jurisdiction, the Court has to ascertain whether the Principles of Natural Justice were followed and has to see whether the Authority below has not exceeded its jurisdiction and whether fair and proper opportunity has been given to the Petitioner. As discussed earlier, Form – A Notice and Form – B Notice were served upon the Petitioner and his wife respectively. Notice was also served upon the Petitioner regarding the enquiry proceedings and the Petitioner did not appear. Fair and proper opportunity has been granted to the Petitioner before ordering eviction and sealing the premises. 10. The main point urged in this Writ Petition is that the Petitioner has challenged the suspension order and that the Writ Petition is pending and hence the Petitioner must be deemed to be in service. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Suspension Order and the propriety of the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against him. The Writ Petition might be relevant only for determining the service conditions of the Petitioner and the pendency of the Writ Petition is not an impediment for proceeding with the eviction proceedings under the Act. On the strength of the order granted, to hold that a delinquent is deemed to be in service for holding that he is not in unauthorized occupation within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act would do violence to the spirit and object of the Act. In these circumstances, interference in eviction order will be travesty of justice, leading to indiscipline amongst the employees, particularly the police service. The impugned order is well considered and does not suffer from any serious error of law, warranting interference. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.