JUDGMENT :- M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner/Tamil Nadu Cricket Association has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records of the Second Respondent/the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Building (Construction & Maintenance) Circle, Chepauk, Chennai-5, in letter No.DB/D5/F5302/5/2013 dated 13.05.2013 and quash the same. 2. According to Mr.P.S.Raman, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, the Petitioner/Tamil Nadu Cricket Association is the Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act (S.No.22 of 1953) and being a Sports Body, it is affiliated to the Board of Control of Cricket in India. Further, the Petitioner is in-charge of conducting various tournaments including under 14, under 16, under 19, under 22, under 25 and Inter-District matches. Moreover, the Petitioner conducts League Championship Tournaments in Chennai etc. 3. It is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/ Association that the only Stadium in the State which hosts international cricket matches, namely, M. A. Chidambaram Stadium in Chennai, is also maintained by the Petitioner. There are about 148 Cricket clubs and two Universities in Chennai and 31 District Cricket Associations in the rest of Tamil Nadu, which are affiliated to the Petitioner/Association. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association urges before this Court that M.A. Chidambaram Stadium was sought to be demolished and reconstructed to achieve the required international standards as mandated by the International Cricket Council. The Petitioner/ Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai, has started work in this regard in a phased manner during the year 2010 and out of the total number of 12 Stands, nine Stands have been completed as on date. 4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association brings it to the notice of this Court that for conducting matches, the Petitioner/Association issues and sells tickets for general public and as a matter of fact, the Petitioner is enjoined to obtain a Temporary Public Resort Licence, which is issued by the third Respondent/Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. In order to apply for this Licence, one of the essential factors is that the Petitioner should obtain the Structural Stability Certificate/ Structural Soundness Certificate from the Second Respondent/ Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chennai - 5. 5. In order to apply for this Licence, one of the essential factors is that the Petitioner should obtain the Structural Stability Certificate/ Structural Soundness Certificate from the Second Respondent/ Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chennai - 5. 5. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association submits that the Second Respondent/Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chennai has issued certificates for the various Blocks/Stands on different dates in respect of M.A.Chidambaram Stadium and in respect of Blocks 'A', 'B' and 'C', Letter dated 11.03.2013 has been issued by the Second Respondent. Added further, in respect of Blocks 'D', 'E' and 'F', Letter dated 10.12.2010 has been issued by the Second Respondent/ Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai. Likewise, with regard to Blocks 'G', 'H' and 'I', the certificate has been issued by the Second Respondent the Letter dated 11.02.2011. 6. In effect, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association contends that all the nine Blocks have been issued with valid and upto date Certificates as regards Structural Stability/Soundness by the Second Respondent. As and when the match was played between two cricketing sides, tickets were issued and sold by the Petitioner and an application was also filed mentioning the aforesaid certificates issued by the Second Respondent before the Police Authorities for issuance of a Temporary Public Resort Licence. At this juncture, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association submits that during the last season of Indian Premier League, namely, Season VI 2013, the Petitioner, as was done in the past, secured all necessary permissions/licences from the various statutory authorities, including the above referred Temporary Public Resort Licence from the Third Respondent/Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, which were dated 13.04.2013 and 26.04.2013. 7. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association out of total eight Matches, seven Matches were completed and the last Match is slated today, i.e., on 14.05.2013 at 8 P.M. While that being the factual position, to the shock and dismay of the Petitioner, the Second Respondent served a notice on 13.05.2013 mentioning that 'no approved CMDA plans were submitted for verification and now on verification, it was observed that nomenclature of the Blocks as in the approved plans varied with the nomenclature of the Blocks for which Structural Soundness Certificate were applied for by the Petitioner and issued by the Second Respondent'. In effect, the Second Respondent categorically stated in the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 to the effect that the Structural Soundness Certificate so far issued have been cancelled and the Petitioner was requested to apply afresh for the same with the nomenclature in accordance with the approved plans. 8. The primordial contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association is that the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Second Respondent is liable to be set aside in limini for the simple reason that the same is not in accordance with law. 9. It is the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association that the Second Respondent has failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and in effect, the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Second Respondent is in negation of the principles of natural justice. Added further, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association projects an argument that having issued Structural Stability Certificate, the validity of which covers the last Match of Indian Premier League Season VI namely dated 14.05.2013 slated today, the same cannot be cancelled in single stroke without calling for explanations/ remarks from the Petitioner or hearing the Petitioner as the case may be. 10. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association also attacks the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Second Respondent on the ground that the said order has been passed just on the previous day of the last Match as mentioned earlier and indeed, the last of Structural Stability Certificate has been issued on 11.03.2013 and even on that date, no fault was found with the application of the Petitioner by the Second Respondent. 11. Yet another submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association is that at no point of time, the Petitioner was required to submit CMDA approved plans for verification of the Second Respondent and therefore, it is not a pre-requisite or condition for issuance of Structural Stability Certificate. It is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association that the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Second Respondent bristles with serious infirmities and illegalities and therefore, the same is to be set aside in the interest of justice. 12. It is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association that the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Second Respondent bristles with serious infirmities and illegalities and therefore, the same is to be set aside in the interest of justice. 12. Finally, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association, while winding up his arguments, submitted that when the Petitioner approached the Second Respondent for Structural Stability Certificate, it gave the names for the Blocks different from the names given in the CMDA sanctioned plan only for the purpose of nomenclature convenience. Further, in the plan prepared by the Architect for CMDA sanction, Blocks 'A' & 'B' correspond to 'Anna Pavilion'. In view of the fact that the Petitioner/Association had not decided to rename the 'Anna Pavilion' for Blocks 'A' & 'B', it deemed it fit to name only the Block next to the Pavilion, namely, Blocks 'C' & 'D' in the CMDA sanctioned plan and hence, named Block 'A' in the application before the Second Respondent. Resultantly, Block 'B' became Block 'C' in the application before the Second Respondent/Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai. 13. The substance of the argument of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Association is that, there was no material alteration while applying before the Second Respondent and the difference in nomenclature is only a mismatch between the approved plan and the application before the Second Respondent. As such, this would not in any manner either render the application before the Second Respondent an erroneous one or affect the Structural Stability or Soundness of the Stadium Building. Also that, a plea is taken on behalf of the Petitioner that change/ variance in nomenclature has no relevance whatsoever and in fact, it cannot go to an extent of cancellation of Structural Stability Certificate/Structural Soundness Certificate issued by the Second Respondent. In fact, the certificates were issued by the Second Respondent based on the Applications for Structural Stability filed by the Petitioner and based on the CMDA sanctioned Plans. 14. In view of the fact that today is the last match to be played at M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, at 8.00 p.m., the impugned order has been served on the Petitioner only on 13.05.2013 evening and further, if the impugned order is not stayed pending final disposal of the writ petition, untold hardship and serious prejudice would accrue to the Petitioner/Association. In view of the fact that today is the last match to be played at M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, at 8.00 p.m., the impugned order has been served on the Petitioner only on 13.05.2013 evening and further, if the impugned order is not stayed pending final disposal of the writ petition, untold hardship and serious prejudice would accrue to the Petitioner/Association. In fact, nearly 40,000 members of the public would be denied entry into M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai, and not only in the interest of general public, but also in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, the impugned order, dated 13.05.2013, passed by the Second Respondent is to be stayed by this Court. 15. Also, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that if the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Second Respondent is allowed to stand, then the Third Respondent is bound to cancel the Temporary Public Resort Licence, dated 26.04.2013, issued by him, in which event, it will lead to closure of the Stadium for the spectators. 16. Conversely, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Learned Advocate General appearing for Respondents 1 to 3, submits that originally, the Petitioner/Association decided to demolish the entire Stands in M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai, and to construct new ones from "A to K" and in fact, the Petitioner/Association has not demolished the Pavilion Stand (A) and (B), which are called Anna Pavilion. Further, it is submitted that every year, Public Works Department is furnishing Structural Stability Certificate for "A" and "B" Stands, viz., Anna Pavilion (renewed on yearly basis) and the Petitioner/Association renovated the balance nine Blocks/ Stands and deliberately changed the nomenclature of each Stand as "A" to "I". Also that, on verification of "I", "J" and "K" Stands, no approval from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was given till today and as on date, the Petitioner/Association has not submitted the approval from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for the entire Stadium. 17. The learned Advocate General strenuously contends that in the instant case on hand, the principles of natural justice would not come into operative play for the simple reason that the Petitioner/Association has committed illegalities and also till today they have not submitted approval from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for the entire Stadium in which event, the principles of natural justice will have no application whatsoever. 18. 18. It is to be borne in mind that the principles of natural justice are not the edicts of a Statute. Even in abstract moral sense, in regard to administrative decision being taken or order being passed, in Administrative Law, it is the fundamental duty of the concerned Authority to provide an opportunity to the other side, viz., in the present case, to the Petitioner/Association or at least calling for explanation/views as to why the nomenclature of Blocks as in the approved plan varied with the nomenclature of Blocks for which Structural Soundness Certificates applied by the Petitioner was changed. 19. To put it succinctly, the term ‘Natural Justice’ is a form of Justice in its abstract moral sense as distinct from a Legislation or Statute or a Decision by a Court of Law. In fact, concept of ‘Natural Justice’ is not a edicts of Statute. It is quiet possible to avail the rules of principles of Natural Justice through a Legislation or by a Statute. In cases, where the principles of Natural Justice are excluded, it cannot be exercised. After all, the object of Natural Justice is to prevent an aberration and miscarriage of Justice. The reason for adherence of principles of Natual Justice is that a Statute cannot supply all details as to how a hearing is to be conducted. As such, the decision maker in Administrative Law is to fall back upon the principles of Natural Justice to fill in the gaps in the statutory provision. As a matter of fact, rules of Natural Justice operate only in those areas not covered by any law validly made. In short, the rules of Natural Justice do not supplant the law of the land, but supplement it, in our considered opinion. 20. In short, the term ‘Natural Justice’ is fittingly called as ‘Fair Play in Action’. Moreover, the rudiments of Natural Justice are to be read into the unoccupied interstices of the Statute unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary, as opined by this Court. 21. 20. In short, the term ‘Natural Justice’ is fittingly called as ‘Fair Play in Action’. Moreover, the rudiments of Natural Justice are to be read into the unoccupied interstices of the Statute unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary, as opined by this Court. 21. In effect, when the Structural Soundness Certificate already issued by the Department earlier and the same being valid up to the year 2016 in respect of some Stands and 2014 in respect of the other Stands and also when the Executive Engineer of the South Presidency Division, Chepauk, Chennai also addressed a letter, dated 11.03.2013, to the Petitioner informing that "A", "B" and "C" Blocks of M.A.Chidambaram Stadium at Victporia Hostel Road, Chepauk, Chennai, was found to be structurally sound and stable to conduct the Cricket matches for a period of three years i.e., from 12.03.2013 to 11.03.2016 with conditions stipulated therein and that apart, when the third Respondent/Commissioner of Police in his proceedings Rc.No.E3 (!)/048/12571/2013, dated 26.04.2013 has issued Temporary Public Resort License subject to conditions that none of the Sri Lankan players/officials should be allowed to play or witness the match during the Indian Premier League - Season VI - 2013 Cricket Matches at M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai-5 on 28.04.2013 02.05.2013 & 14.05.2013, we are not in a position to appreciate the action of the Second Respondent/Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Building (Construction & Maintenance) Circle, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 in passing the impugned order, dated 13.05.2013, in and by which, the Structural Soundness Certificates so far issued by the Public Works Department were cancelled in respect of the petitioner/M.A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai. 22. In fact, the reasons assigned thereto by the Second Respondent that now on verification of the approved plan issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, it is observed that the nomenclature of the Blocks as in approved plan varies with the nomenclature of the Blocks for which Structural Soundness Certificates applied by the Petitioner are not valid and tenable one in the eye of law. 23. 23. Therefore, on an assessment of the prima facie materials available on record and on balance, with a view to secure the ends of justice, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 13.05.2013, passed by the Second Respondent and also further observe that even on the ground of no show cause notice being issued to the Petitioner, prior to the passing of the impugned order, dated 13.05.2013 by the Second Respondent and not obtaining objections or remarks from the Petitioner, we are perforced to grant interim stay of the impugned order passed by the Second Respondent, dated 13.05.2013, for a period of four weeks to advance the cause of justice. Notice to the Respondents returnable by 11.06.2013. 24. Registry is directed to list the matter on 11.06.2013. Meanwhile, the Respondents are directed to file their counter also.