Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has projected the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Proceedings Letter No.9009A/SC2(1)/04, dated 18.11.2005 and to quash the same. Further, the petitioner has also sought a direction to be issued to the respondents to direct them to allot No.6, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, to her. 2. According to the petitioner, she is residing at Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, since 1985. The quarters was originally allotted to her father, who retired from service as Police Constable. From the year 1993, she is working in Ambattur Industrial Estate at M/s. Pack Tech. System and Equipments. 3. The case of the petitioner is that when G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997 was introduced, she approached the Manager, Ambattur SIDCO Industrial Estate, Chennai, to sell Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, to her as per G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997. However, the concerned authority instructed that the said quarters would be allotted to her after her father's retirement from the Police Department. 4. The plea of the petitioner is that after her father's superannuation, she approached the Manager, Ambattur SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, to sell Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, to her, as per G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997. But the SIDCO Manager failed to take any action. She submitted a representation on 25.03.2002 before the first respondent praying for the issuance of an order to direct his subordinates to sell the said premises to her in terms of the ingredients of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, referred to supra. 5. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Government of India passed G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, in and by which, it was made mention of that the houses in the Industrial Estate could be sold to persons residing there and who are working in the Industrial Estate, if they belonged to weaker section. 6. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the petitioner is fully eligible to get Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, for purchasing the same as per G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, and a sale consideration may be reasonably fixed in accordance with the tenor of the said Government Order, because of the fact that she belonged to economically weaker section. 7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.9009A/SC2(1)/04, dated 18.11.2005 , is against the principles of natural justice. Further, the impugned order suffers from an infirmity of not taking into account the spirit and tenor of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997. 8. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order of the first respondent in Letter No.9009A/SC2(1)/04, dated 18.11.2005, wherein it is inter alia mentioned that the labour tenements located in Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, have been allotted to Industrial workers by the Department of Industries and Commerce and that the Police Quarters does not come under the purview of the labour tenements. Also G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, is applicable only to economically weaker sections for the purchase of labour tenement by the industrial worker only who has got allotment originally and not meant for Government Servants and family members etc. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is for the respondents to prove that Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, in issue, is a Police Quarters and further, it is also to be proved that in an extent of 1.02 Acres of land at Ambattur Industrial Estate, E-2 Police Station building is allotted freely to SIDCO Police people and also only in this extent of 1.02 Acres of land, Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, is situated. 10. Another contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner, being the daughter of a retired Police Head Constable, is a person, who belongs to economically weaker section and she is an Accountant working with M/s. Pack Tech. System and Equipments at SP Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, a Small Scale Industry. 10. Another contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner, being the daughter of a retired Police Head Constable, is a person, who belongs to economically weaker section and she is an Accountant working with M/s. Pack Tech. System and Equipments at SP Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, a Small Scale Industry. As such, she comes squarely within the ambit of the ingredients of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, Section 7 contemplates that in respect of unauthorised occupants, who have been inducted as sub-tenants by the original allottees, and trespassers, the houses, which are meant to be constructed for the labours, cannot be sold. 12. The main plank of attack made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that as per the impugned proceedings Letter No.9009A/SC2(1)/04 of the first respondent dated 18.11.2005, "the Police Quarters does not come under the purview of Labour Tenement. Moreover, G.O.Ms.No.128 H.U.D. dated 24.03.1997 is applicable only to economically weaker section for the purchase of labour tenemant by the Industrial worker only who has got allotment originally and not meant for Government servants and family members". 13. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent has not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order dated 18.11.2005 and consequently there is a negation of the principles of natural justice. Even for the rejection order such as the impugned order dated 18.11.2005, the petitioner ought to be given the opportunity of prior hearing, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Accountant in a Small Scale Industry, viz., Pack Tech. Even for the rejection order such as the impugned order dated 18.11.2005, the petitioner ought to be given the opportunity of prior hearing, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Accountant in a Small Scale Industry, viz., Pack Tech. System and Equipments at SP Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, as per the certificate given by the said employer dated 30.06.2001 (as seen from the typed set of papers in page No.4) and since she is a person working in the Small Scale Industry Establishment area and belonging to weaker section community, she is entitled to avail the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, and therefore, Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, is entitled to be sold in her favour. 15. Conversely, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent contends that Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, was originally sold to C. Philips, the father of the petitioner, on rental basis, while he was serving as Head Constable under the control of Superintendent of Police, Chengai East District and that the petitioner's father retired on 31.08.2002 from service and till his retirement, the rent for the aforesaid quarters was deducted from his salary by the said Superintendent of Police. 16. The plea of the second respondent is that the petitioner's father, after attaining superannuation, has not vacated No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, in issue and a notice has been issued to her father to vacate the quarters, who filed W.P.No.12451 of 2003 with a prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider his representation and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 23.04.2003 without costs. Another notice, dated 23.06.2003, has been issued to the petitioner's father requesting him to vacate the aforesaid quarters (allotted to him originally). After the receipt of notice, he filed W.P.No.14688 of 2003 challenging the issuance of notice, dated 23.06.2003 and finally, the said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn on 22.10.2003. 17. Another notice, dated 23.06.2003, has been issued to the petitioner's father requesting him to vacate the aforesaid quarters (allotted to him originally). After the receipt of notice, he filed W.P.No.14688 of 2003 challenging the issuance of notice, dated 23.06.2003 and finally, the said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn on 22.10.2003. 17. It comes to be known that the petitioner's father C. Philips, during the pendency of W.P.No.14688 of 2003, filed O.S.No.340 of 2003 praying for restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, viz., Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600058. An order of injunction in I.A.No.1589 of 2003 in O.S.No.340 of 2003 has been granted by the learned District Munsif Court, Ambattur. After obtaining the order of injunction, the petitioner's father withdrew W.P.No.14688 of 2003. 18. After the dismissal of I.A.No.1589 of 2003 in O.S.No.340 of 2003 by the trial Court, another notice, dated 24.04.2004, has been issued to the petitioner as well as the occupants to vacate the quarters. The notice has been pasted on the door of the quarters on account of the refusal of the petitioner to receive the said notice. Being aggrieved against the dismissal of I.A.No.1589 of 2003 in O.S.No.340 of 2003, the petitioner filed C.M.A. before the Sub Court, Poonamallee and the First Appellate Court has granted an interim injunction. 19. The pith and substance of the contention projected by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent is that G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, is applicable only to labour tenemants and not for SIDCO Police Quarters. 20. Further, the learned counsel for the second respondent contends that the Police Quarters have been allotted on rental basis to Police Staff, who are in service and at any rate, the petitioner is not entitled to get the allotment of Police Quarters. To put it differently the gist of the contention of the second respondent is that Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, is meant only to persons, who are in Police service/Government service. 21. It is to be noted that against the occupants of the aforesaid quarters, under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act, eviction proceedings have been initiated as per Letter No.506/A10/03, dated 27.04.2004 and the same has not been challenged by the occupants. 21. It is to be noted that against the occupants of the aforesaid quarters, under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act, eviction proceedings have been initiated as per Letter No.506/A10/03, dated 27.04.2004 and the same has not been challenged by the occupants. It is also contended that when there is an appeal remedy available under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act, the petitioner cannot seek the aid of this Court by filing the present writ petition. 22. Finally, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent that Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be equated with that of labour tenements, as claimed by the petitioner and therefore, the occupation of the petitioner in respect of the said quarters is an unauthorised and illegal one. 23. The Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent places reliance on the letter of the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Development Corporation in Na.Ka.No.18245/R4/97, dated 21.09.2001, wherein it is, among other things, mentioned that in the Ambattur Industrial Estate, the present occupation of fifteen rental quarters cannot be name transferred in their names. 24. The Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent submits that the petitioner's father, during his service, is one among the fifteen tenants in the SIDCO tenements, which has been used as Police Quarters and the petitioner's father retired from service on 31.08.2002 and thereafter, the petitioner has no locus to continue to be in occupation of Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, in issue. 25. In the typed set of papersfiled by the Second Respondent's Counsel, at Page No.6, it appears that in the limits of E-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station, there are fifteen Police Personnel, who are in occupation of quarters like A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 etc. and the said letter shows that the quarters belonged to SIDCO Estate, wherein the Police Constables have been residing. Whether Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, is situated within the area of 1.02 Acres, wherein an allotment to construct E-2 Police Station for SIDCO Police people by the Small Scale Industries Department or otherwise, is a matter which cannot be gone into by this Court since the matter may be a disputed question of fact in issue. 26. 26. But the essential fact that remains for rumination is that when the petitioner's father (retired Head Constable) is not an Industrial Worker and not even an employee of SIDCO, certainly, the petitioner, being the daughter of retired Head Constable, cannot avail the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, as opined by this Court. It is not in dispute that the total number of labour tenements under the control of SIDCO are 201 and these were constructed as flats in 31 blocks. 27. The principal contention of the Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent is that labour tenements are quite different from Police Quarters and when the SIDCO residential quarters was given to be petitioner's father during his service time period, after his retirement, the SIDCO residential quarters cannot be claimed by the petitioner because of the latent and patent fact that G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997, is concerned with the labour tenements. The labour tenements are allotted on rental basis to labour units of Ambattur Industrial Estate. 28. Repelling the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner produced a letter from her employer dated 30.06.2001, which showed that she was working as Accountant from 06.05.1993 to 30.06.2001 and therefore, she is entitled to avail the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997. 29. Even a perusal of the letter of the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Development Corporation, dated 21.09.2001, in the typed set of papers filed by the second respondent, shows in reference No.2 the letter of the petitioner's father, dated 21.05.2001 is mentioned. Only for the said letter of the petitioner's father, a reply has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Development Corporation on 21.09.2001. After retirement of the petitioner's father, neither the petitioner, nor her family members, nor not even the family members of the petitioner's father can reside in Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600058, in issue. Further, the Doctrine of Holding Over the Tenancy of the petitioner's father or the plea 'tenant under sufferance' cannot be availed of or taken advantage of by the petitioner when the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997 in the considered opinion of this Court. 30. Further, the Doctrine of Holding Over the Tenancy of the petitioner's father or the plea 'tenant under sufferance' cannot be availed of or taken advantage of by the petitioner when the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.128 (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 24.03.1997 in the considered opinion of this Court. 30. As a matter of fact, 201 labour tenements under the scheme of subsidised rate of construction of houses or tenements for the use of labourers in the Industrial Estate at Ambattur have been constructed by the Government and have been allotted to the labourers working in the Industrial Unit at Industrial Estate at Ambattur. 31. Even a glance of the colour photographs enclosed in Page Nos.29 and 30 of the typed set of papers filed by the second respondent points out that Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, has been allotted to the Police Quarters and the same is different from that of labour tenements' block in SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur. 32. In law, after the retirement of the petitioner's father from Police Service (as Head Constable), the petitioner has no legally enforceable right to stay in Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058. This shows unequivocally that she is an unauthorised occupant, of course, liable to be vacated in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Whether the petitioner belongs to economically weaker section or whether the petitioner's monthly income was well below Rs.350/- per month to avail the benefits of labour tenements, viz., Door No.6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, is an issue of disputed question of fact, which cannot be traversed or gone into detail by this Court in Writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33. Therefore, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, in view of the pendency of O.S.No.340 of 2003 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Ambattur, or even the C.M.A. pending before the Sub Court, Poonamallee. 34. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the petitioner is not allotted Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, initially and she is not also a Government servant. 34. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the petitioner is not allotted Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, initially and she is not also a Government servant. The real position is that the said quarters has been allotted to her father during his service as Police Constable and after his retirement, neither the petitioner, nor her family members, nor even the petitioner's father is entitled to be in possession of Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, Letter No.9009A/SC2(1)/04, dated 18.11.2005, is sans merits. Consequently, the writ petition fails. 35. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Connected M.P. is closed.