Order 1. The petitioner in W.P.No.27167 of 2012 is Cosmopolitan Club (Shortly ‘the Club’). The petitioner in W.P.No.27168 of 2012 is the Tamil Nadu Golf Federation (Shortly ‘the Federation’). 2. The Club was established in 1930’s. It was initially given license in the year 1933 to an extent of 65.09 acres of land for the purpose of Golf course. During 1935, the Club was given license to another extent of 12.61 acres of land for the purpose of Golf course. In 1956, the license was converted as lease for 10 years, that is, upto 1966. In 1966, the same was extended for 30 years, that is upto 1996. After 1996, the lease was not renewed and there was certain litigation. 3. Ultimately, a joint lease was granted to the Club and the Federation vide G.O. Ms. No. 138, Revenue Department, dated 24.03.2001. However, the same was cancelled vide G.O.Ms.No.282, Revenue Department, 28.06.2002. 4. Both the Club and the Federation challenged the said order in G.O.Ms.No.282 before this Court. 5. While so, G.O.Ms.No.282 was withdrawn and a fresh order was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.33, Revenue Department, dated 23.01.2009, granting joint lease to the Club and Federation, for a period of 30 years, from 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2026. The leased out area is 80 acres. The lease rent was fixed at a minimum of Rs.1 Crore per annum, for the period from 01.07.1996 to 23.03.2001 and for the period from 24.03.2001 to 30.06.2026, the lease rent was fixed at a minimum of Rs.1.5 Crores per annum. By the said Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.33, two Bipartite Land Management Committees were constituted. 6. The Club challenged some of the conditions imposed in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.33, particularly the increase in the lease rent and the constitution of two Bipartite Committees and the matter was taken up to the Honourable Supreme Court. However, the Club lost the litigation and G.O.Ms.No.33 was upheld. Ultimately, the Club has paid the lease rent. 7. While so, the impugned letter dated 26.09.2012 was issued by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department of the Tamil Nadu Government directing the Club and the Federation to show cause as to why the joint lease granted in favour of them shall not be cancelled. It is alleged that the petitioners violated the conditions of lease. 7. While so, the impugned letter dated 26.09.2012 was issued by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department of the Tamil Nadu Government directing the Club and the Federation to show cause as to why the joint lease granted in favour of them shall not be cancelled. It is alleged that the petitioners violated the conditions of lease. It is also stated therein that the Government decided to resume the leased out land for alienating the same to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions are filed. 8. The respondents filed Counter affidavits questioning the maintainability of these writ petitions. It is stated therein that the impugned letters are merely a show cause notice and thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Later, a detailed counter affidavit is filed, on merits. 9. Heard the submissions made on either side. 10. The Club approached the Government of Madras State during the year 1933 itself to allot them lands at Mambalam Guindy Taluk to develop the Golf Course. Accordingly, the Club was allotted lands to an extent of 65.09 acres as early as in the year 1933, by the then Government of Madras State, and a license was also issued. Subsequently, the Club was granted license for another extent of 12.61 acres in the year 1935. Later, the license was converted as lease in the year 1956 and the lease period was extended till 30.06.1966, vide G.O.Ms.No.4696, Revenue Department, dated 27.12.1956 and the lease rent was fixed at Rs.15/- per acre, per annum. That is, the lease rent per annum for the entire extent of 77.37 acres of land is Rs.1160.55. When the lease period came to end on 30.06.1966, the same was renewed for a period of 30 years, from 01.07.1966 to 30.06.1996 vide G.O.Ms.No.3189, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1966 and the lease rent was fixed at Rs.5,800/-per annum for the entire extent of 77.37 acres of land. Even before the lease period came to end on 30.06.1996, the Club requested the Government to renew the lease. 11. When the request of the Club was under the consideration of the Government, the Federation complained that the Club did not properly maintain the Golf ground Course and no sufficient steps have been take to develop the Golf Course and that the infrastructures provided are not on par with the international standards. 11. When the request of the Club was under the consideration of the Government, the Federation complained that the Club did not properly maintain the Golf ground Course and no sufficient steps have been take to develop the Golf Course and that the infrastructures provided are not on par with the international standards. Thus, the Federation requested the Government to hand over the land to them on lease. 12. The Government determined to develop the existing Golf Course to world class level by adopting international standards. Hence, the Government appointed the Secretary, Sports Control Board, to inspect the Golf ground and to submit report for improvement of the Golf ground to international standards. Accordingly, the Secretary submitted a report stating that proper facilities are not available in the Golf ground and due to lack of maintenance, there was deterioration. 13. In these circumstances, the Government issued a letter dated 03.04.1997 constituting a Tripartite Committee consisting of the Members of the Club, Members of the Federation and Members of the Government of Tamil Nadu in equal numbers and the Golf ground was entrusted to the said Committee. In the aforesaid letter, lease was granted for a period of 30 years from 01.07.1996, with the aforesaid condition. 14. Aggrieved against the letter dated 03.04.1997 of the Government, the Club approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.9043 of 1997 questioning the entrustment of Golf ground to the said Committee. This Court, while setting aside the condition relating to constitution of Tripartite Committee, held that it was for the Government to decide about the renewal of the lease, in accordance with law. 15. In the said circumstances, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.278, Revenue Department, dated 04.06.1999 refusing to renew the lease after 01.07.1996, in favour of the Club and directed the Club to surrender the Golf land. 16. The Club filed writ petition in W.P.No.9636 of 1999 against the aforesaid Government Order. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 13.10.1999, expressing its view that as stated in the impugned Government Order, the Government, taking note of the interest of the Golf players, would take appropriate decision in this regard. 17. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.10.1999, passed in W.P.No.9636 of 1999, the Government issued notice to the Club under the Tamil Nadu Public Places (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975. 18. 17. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.10.1999, passed in W.P.No.9636 of 1999, the Government issued notice to the Club under the Tamil Nadu Public Places (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975. 18. The Club filed writ appeal in W.A.No.2101 of 1999 against the order passed in W.P.No.9636 of 1999 dated 13.10.1999. However, when the writ appeal came up for final hearing, the Club withdrew the same on 24.01.2001. 19. The Club also filed writ petition in W.P.No.20673 of 1999 against the notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Public Places (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 and the said writ petition was also withdrawn by the Club. 20. While so, the Club and the Federation intimated the Government that they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.01.2001 and 22.02.2001 and requested for joint lease of Golf lands. 21. Based on the said Memorandum of Understanding, the Government issued order in G.O.Ms.No.138, Revenue Department, dated 24.03.2001 granting joint lease to the Club and Federation, of the lands, to an extent of 77.70 acres in T.S.No.2, Block No.8, Government Farm House, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, to develop the Golf ground to international standards and to main the same standard in future also. A special condition was imposed in the said Government Order that a sum of Rs.5 to 20 Crores shall be collected for the development and to suggest the technical expertise for the Tamil Nadu Golf Sports, by the Federation. Further, the lease period was fixed at 30 years from 01.07.1996 onwards. A Governing body, consisting of 15 members, with equal representation from the Club, Federation and the Government was also constituted. The day today administration was entrusted to the Federation. The Government Order also states that the lessees shall undertake to pay equally the lease amount that could be determined by the Government. Further, the Federation shall collect a sum of Rs.10 crores, within a period of 10 years, for the development of Golf course. 22. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.282, Revenue Department, dated 28.06.2002 cancelling the lease of the Golf ground stating that clause 7(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.138 was violated. 23. The Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.283, Revenue Department, dated 28.06.2002 vesting the Golf ground with the Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority. 24. 22. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.282, Revenue Department, dated 28.06.2002 cancelling the lease of the Golf ground stating that clause 7(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.138 was violated. 23. The Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.283, Revenue Department, dated 28.06.2002 vesting the Golf ground with the Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority. 24. The Club and the Federation filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23657 and 23932 of 2002 respectively, questioning G.O.Ms.No.282 and also obtained interim order. 25. Both the Club and the Federation made representations to the Government seeking to withdraw the order in G.O.Ms.No.282. 26. Considering the representations of the Club and the Federation, the Government issued order in G.O.Ms.No.33, Revenue Department, dated 23.01.2009 granting lease for 30 years from 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2026. The Government Order states that the Club is given the lease from 01.07.1996 to 23.03.2001 and a joint lease is given to the Club and the Federation from 24.03.2001 to 30.06.2026. The lease rent was fixed at Rs.1 Crore per annum for the entire extent of land from 01.07.1996 to 23.03.2001 and the Club was directed to pay the lease rent immediately. The lease rent from 24.03.2001 was fixed at Rs.1.5 Crores per annum for the entire extent of land and the Government directed both the Club and the Federation, to pay equally the lease rent. The lease rent shall be at the rate of 15% of the total audited annual income of the Federation and the Club, subject to a minimum of Rs.1.5 Crores per annum. 27. The leased out land as per G.O.Ms.No.33 was 80.40 acres. The said Government Order provides for constitution of two Bipartite Land Management Committees i.e. one for the Golf Federation and another for the Travancore Pavilion. The Committee relating to Travancore Pavilion would be represented by the Club and another Committee would be represented by the Federation. 28. The Club filed writ petition in W.P.No.4255 of 2009 before this Court seeking to quash the various clauses of G.O.Ms.No.33. While ordering notice of motion on 24.03.2009, in W.P.No.4255 of 2009, this Court granted interim stay for some of the clauses of G.O.Ms.No.33, including the clause relating to enhancement of lease rent. After hearing both sides, this Court dismissed the writ petition in W.P.No.4255 of 2009 on 28.04.2009. 29. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2009 passed in W.P.No.4255 of 2009, the Club filed writ appeal in W.A.No.625 of 2009. After hearing both sides, this Court dismissed the writ petition in W.P.No.4255 of 2009 on 28.04.2009. 29. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2009 passed in W.P.No.4255 of 2009, the Club filed writ appeal in W.A.No.625 of 2009. While admitting the writ appeal on 19.05.2009, a Division Bench of this Court, granted interim stay for certain clauses of G.O.Ms.No.33, on condition that the Club should pay 1/3rd of the lease amount payable, within a period of 8 weeks. 30. The Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, sent a letter dated 11.06.2009 to the Club, directing them to pay a sum of Rs.3,57,47,252/-, being 1/3rd of the lease amount payable by them, for the period from 01.07.1996 to 23.03.2009, as directed by this Court. 31. In reply to the same, the Club sent a letter dated 07.07.2009 to the Tahsildar, enclosing two cheques, for a total sum of Rs.3,57,47,252/-, as demanded by him in his letter dated 11.06.2009. 32. Subsequently, after hearing both sides, W.A.No.625 of 2009 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, on 23.02.2011. 33. Against the order dated 23.02.2011 passed in W.A.No.625 of 2009, the Club approached the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.Nos.23773 and 23774 of 2011. However, pursuant to the understanding reached between the parties, the Club withdrew the SLPs on 31.08.2012. 34. Thereafter, the Club sent a letter dated 17.09.2012 to the Tahsildar, enclosing two demand drafts, bearing no.880821 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, dated 10.09.2012 for Rs.2,06,66,384/- and bearing no.574573, drawn on State Bank of India, dated 10.09.2012 for Rs.6,19,98,000/- towards lease rent for the period from 24.03.2001 to 31.03.2012. 35. As far as the Federation is concerned, they paid the lease rent as per G.O.Ms.No.33. 36. While so, the Government issued the impugned letter bearing No.6159/LD2 (1)/2009-12, dated 26.09.2012 to the Club and the Federation asking them to show cause as to why the joint lease granted to them to an extent of 80.40 acres of land in Government Farm Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, should not be cancelled, within 15 days on receipt of the said notice. 37. These writ petitions are filed by the Club and the Federation questioning the aforesaid impugned letter, raising various grounds. However, I am not going into the various grounds raised by the Club and the Federation as well as the reply made by the Government, as the same is not necessary. 38. 37. These writ petitions are filed by the Club and the Federation questioning the aforesaid impugned letter, raising various grounds. However, I am not going into the various grounds raised by the Club and the Federation as well as the reply made by the Government, as the same is not necessary. 38. The contents of the impugned letter is extracted hereunder: "Sub: Land - Lease - Chennai District - Mambalam Guindy Taluk - Government Farm Village - 80.40 acres of land - Jointly leased out in favour of Cosmopolitan Club and Tamil Nadu Gold Federation in G.O.(Ms) No.33, Revenue, dated 23.1.2009 - Violation of lease conditions and requirement of the lease land by the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu for public purpose -Issue of show cause notice for cancellation of lease - Regarding. Ref: G.O.(Ms) No.33, Revenue, dated 23.1.2009. ****** In the G.O. cited, land measuring an extent of 80.40 acres in Government Farm Village, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District has been jointly leased out to Cosmopolitan Club and Tamil Nadu Golf Federation under usual terms and conditions as per RSO 24 (A) and with certain special conditions. 2. The Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu has requested the above said land for hosting the 20th Asian Athletic Championship during 2013 and to create necessary infrastructure for hosting this championship and to establish a Sports Hub. Accepting the request of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, the Government have decided to resume the land which was leased to you for alienating the same to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. 3. In the above lease, you have jointly violated the conditions of lease as follows: (i) Lease deed has not been executed so far; (ii) As per the conditions laid down in the G.O. the lease amount has not been paid with the stipulated time, for which both of you are jointly responsible. (iii) The Cosmopolitan Club has not sent the list of four members for the Land Management Committee till date; (iv) No meeting of the Land Management Committee has been held so far. 4. (iii) The Cosmopolitan Club has not sent the list of four members for the Land Management Committee till date; (iv) No meeting of the Land Management Committee has been held so far. 4. In view of the above violations and the decision of the Government to alienate the above said lands to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu for the public purpose of hosting 20th Asian Athletic Championship 2013 and establishment of the Sports Hub, you are directed to show cause within 15 days on receipt of this notice, why the joint lease granted to you to an extent of 80.40 acres of land in Government Farm Village, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District should not be cancelled. If no reply is received within the stipulated time, it will be construed that you have no reply to furnish and the matter will be decided based on the available records and merits of the case." 39. While the Government took an objection that the writ petitions, questioning the show cause notice, are not maintainable, the case of the Club and the Federation is that the impugned letter is not really a show cause notice and the Government has already determined to cancel the lease and therefore, the writ petitions are maintainable. 40. The Club and the Federation heavily relied on the following passage from paras 2 and 4 of the impugned letter, in support of their stand that the Government already predetermined the issue and thus the impugned letter is not merely a show cause notice. "2....... Accepting the request of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, the Government have decided to resume the land which was leased to you for alienating the same to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. 4. In view of the above violations and the decision of the Government to alienate the above said lands to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu for the public purpose of hosting 20th Asian Athletic Championship 2013 and establishment of the Sports Hub, you are directed to show cause.................." 41. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Government would consider the reply to the show cause notice that could be submitted by the Club and the Federation, with open mind, and they need not have apprehension that a decision was already arrived at by the Government. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Government would consider the reply to the show cause notice that could be submitted by the Club and the Federation, with open mind, and they need not have apprehension that a decision was already arrived at by the Government. The learned Advocate General submitted that the decision to resume the land for giving to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu would be treated as proposal and the petitioners could submit reply to the proposal and the Government would consider the entire issue with open mind. 42. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Club and Federation initially submitted that in such an event, let the Government withdraws the impugned letter and issue a fresh show cause notice. Alternatively, the learned Senior Counsels submitted that there shall be a written commitment from the Government that they could treat the word "decision" as mentioned in the show cause notice as "proposal". In the absence of any written commitment, they prayed for setting aside the impugned letter giving liberty to the Government to issue fresh show cause notice. 43. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Club and the Federation heavily relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in ORYX FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2010 (13) SCC 427 ] and more particularly, paras 24 and 27 to 33 of the said judgment. Those paras are extracted hereunder: "24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. A show-cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. 27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony. 28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against. 29. In the instant case from the underlined portion of the show-cause notice it is clear that the third respondent has demonstrated a totally closed mind at the stage of show-cause notice itself. Such a closed mind is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43 which is set out below. The aforesaid Rule has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 and as such that Rule is statutory in nature. 30. Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules provides as follows: 44. Cancellation of registration. “Where the Secretary or other officer is satisfied that any person has obtained a certificate of registration by furnishing incorrect information or that he has contravened any of the provisions of this rule or of the conditions mentioned in the certificate of registration, or any person who has been registered as an exporter fails during the period of twelve consecutive months to export any of the marine products in respect of which he is registered, or if the Secretary or other officer is satisfied that such person has become disqualified to continue as an exporter, the Secretary or such officer may, after giving the person who holds a certificate a reasonable opportunity of making his objections, by order, cancel the registration and communicate to him a copy of such order.” 31. It is of course true that the show-cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. It is of course true that the show-cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show-cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show-cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence. 32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show-cause notice. 33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi-judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it." 45. In my view, the aforesaid judgment squarely covers the issue involved in the present case on hand. The impugned letter is not a mere show cause notice and it clearly reveals to a naked eye that a decision has already been arrived at by the Government. Therefore, the impugned letter is liable to be quashed. However, the learned Senior Counsels for the Club and Federation submitted that if the Government gives a written commitment to the effect that the "decision" could be treated as a "proposal", the Club and the Federation could submit the reply within a stipulated period and the Government could pass orders on merits, with open mind, as assured by the learned Advocate General, within a stipulated period. 46. In these circumstances, the learned Advocate General has produced a letter dated 30.01.2013 of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, addressed to him. 46. In these circumstances, the learned Advocate General has produced a letter dated 30.01.2013 of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, addressed to him. The contents of the said letter dated 30.01.2013 is extracted hereunder: "Sub: Land - Lease - Chennai District - Mambalam Guindy Taluk - Government Farm Village - 80.40 acres of land - Jointly leased out in favour of Cosmopolitan Club and Tamil Nadu Golf Federation - Violation of lease conditions - show cause notice issued clarification - Reg. Ref: Government letter No.6159/Ld2(1)/2009-12 dated 26.09.2012 ****** I am directed to clarify that the word 'decision' mentioned in the show cause notice issued in the Government letter cited, is actually the 'proposal' of the Government. If the petitioners submit a reply to the Government for the show cause notice, it will be considered on merits of the case." 47. In my view, the letter dated 30.01.2013 interprets the impugned letter, by stating that the word "decision" as mentioned in the impugned letter is actually the "proposal" of the Government, instead of simply incorporating the assurance given by the Advocate General, by way of written commitment. That is, it is not stated that they would treat the "decision" as mentioned in the impugned letter as "proposal". On the other hand, it is stated as if the word "decision" mentioned in the impugned letter means actually the "proposal" of the Government. I am not inclined to agree with the letter dated 30.01.2013. The impugned letter, that is reproduced above, makes it clear that it is not a proposal, but actually a decision to resume the lands before getting reply from the petitioners. Hence, the impugned show cause notice is a mere idle formality and I have no hesitation to quash the same. In view of my conclusion that the impugned letter is a decision to resume the lands even before getting any reply from the petitioners, I am not going into the various grounds raised by both parties. 48. Accordingly, the impugned letter is quashed and writ petitions are allowed. However, the Government is at liberty to issue fresh notice to the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.