JUDGMENT 1. These three writ petitions are filed by M. Abdul Shukeer, the petitioner in W.P.No.41586 of 2002, V. Kalyanasundaram, the petitioner in W.P.No.41587 of 2002 and G. Velayudham, the petitioner in W.P.No.41588 of 2002. Pending the writ petition, since V. Kalyanasundaram died, his legal representative has been impleaded as a party respondent in W.P.No.41587 of 2002. Mr. M. Abdul Shukeer, the petitioner in W.P.No.41586 of 2002 seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent, namely, the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (TANSIDCO) made in proceedings No.18900/R5/97-1 dated 13.2.2001 and quash the same with a further direction to the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the residential labour tenement bearing No.D-16, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97. 2. Mr. V. Kalyanasundaram and Mr. G. Velayudham, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.41587 & 41588 of 2002 have filed the writ petitions for issuance of a writ of mandamus to execute the sale deeds in respect of the residential tenements bearing Nos.5 and 46, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, K. Pudur, Madurai respectively in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are as follows. Mr. M. Abdul Shukeer was originally appointed as Maistry in the Industrial Estate, SIDCO, an unit under the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu, in the year 1967. During his service in the department, he was allotted a residential tenement bearing No.D-16, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Madras on 1.4.76. As per the allotment conditions, he has to pay the rent for his occupation. Subsequently, on reaching the age of superannuation in the year 1999, he retired from service as Works Inspector. As per G.O.Ms.No.3200, Housing dated 26.6.65, the said allotment of residential tenement was made in his favour under the 2% quota given for essential maintenance staff. The respondents passed an order dated 14.11.97 in Na.Ka.No.734/A4/97 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,600/- as the sale price for conveying the tenement in his favour and the petitioner also paid the said amount on 17.11.97. A receipt was also issued to the petitioner by the second respondent acknowledging the payment. The respondents passed an order dated 14.11.97 in Na.Ka.No.734/A4/97 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,600/- as the sale price for conveying the tenement in his favour and the petitioner also paid the said amount on 17.11.97. A receipt was also issued to the petitioner by the second respondent acknowledging the payment. But his grievance today is that the respondents have not so far taken any steps to execute the necessary sale deed in spite of several reminders and representations. It was also pleaded that there is no bar to his eligibility to obtain the sale deed from the respondents in respect of the labour tenement that has already been allotted in his favour, since the petitioner joined in the year 1967 as Maistry in the Industrial Estate, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (TANSIDCO). Therefore, he made representations seeking for allotment of the tenement by executing the proper sale deed. But the said representations were not considered and he was directed to receive back the amount of sale price of Rs.9,600/-. Hence, he was constrained to file the present writ petition questioning the impugned proceedings. 4. Mr. V. Kalyanasundaram, the petitioner in W.P.No.41587 of 2002 was appointed in the year 1968 as Wireman in the Industrial Estate (Electricity Department) at Madurai, which is attached with the Department of Industries and Commerce of the Government of Tamil Nadu. On promotion to the post of Foreman, he retired from service in the year 1997 in the Electricity Board, Anupanadi Station, Madurai. While he was in service, residential tenements were constructed by the respondents for the benefit of the labourers in various places including Madras and Madurai. After completion of construction of the tenements, he was allotted a residential tenement bearing No.5, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, K. Pudur, Madurai as per the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director, Industries and Commerce, Madurai in Proceedings No.13903/D/68 dated 29.10.68. In terms of the said proceeding, he had been regularly paying the dues by having the possession and enjoyment of the labour tenement. When matters stood as above, the respondents took a decision to convey and transfer by way of sale deeds to the respective allottees in whose favour the labour tenements were already allotted as per G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97. When matters stood as above, the respondents took a decision to convey and transfer by way of sale deeds to the respective allottees in whose favour the labour tenements were already allotted as per G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97. In this connection, the respondents also by order dated 31.12.97 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,600/- as the sale price for the unit in the occupation of the petitioner. In the light of the said order, the petitioner has also paid the above said sum under the receipt issued by the second respondent on 2.1.98. Subsequently, the respondents have also submitted the sale deed dated 19.11.99 to be registered in his favour and the same was presented before the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam, Madurai for registration. The Sub Registrar raised objections regarding the valuation of the property and the stamp duty payable thereon. In response to the said query, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Sub Registrar the communication dated 29.11.99 issued by the second respondent which mentioned that the stamp duty payable on the sale deed is only on the value specified there under and not on the market value at the time of registration. But the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam returned the original sale deed for further clarification from the Government. Under these circumstances, the petitioner and similarly placed persons made a request to the Government to clarify the position. The Government also, after considering the request, passed an order to the effect that the value of stamp duty as specified in the sale deed is the correct one and thereby directed the Sub Registrar to register the sale deed without insisting upon the market value. Subsequently, the sale deed was presented to the Sub Registrar for registration, but again it was returned for obtaining a fresh sale deed. Once again the petitioner made a request to the respondents to issue a fresh sale deed by surrendering the original sale deed to the second respondent. But so far the sale deed has not been issued by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus to the respondents, who are bound by law, to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased, in respect of the residential tenement bearing No.5, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, K. Pudur, Madurai. 5. Mr. Hence, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus to the respondents, who are bound by law, to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased, in respect of the residential tenement bearing No.5, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, K. Pudur, Madurai. 5. Mr. G. Velayudham, the petitioner in W.P.No.41588 of 2002 was appointed in the year 1961 as Welder in the TANSI Engineering Works at Madurai, which is attached with the Department of Industries and Commerce of the Government of Tamil Nadu and he retired from service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 30.9.93. While in service, the petitioner was also allotted a residential tenement bearing No.46, Old Labour Tenement, Industrial Estate, K. Pudur, Madurai on 19.12.74. In terms of the said proceeding, he had been regularly paying the dues by having the possession and enjoyment of the labour tenement. When matters stood as above, the respondents took a decision to convey and transfer by way of sale deeds to the respective allottees in whose favour the labour tenements were already allotted as per G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97. In this connection, the respondents by order dated 31.12.97 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,600/-as the sale price for the unit in the occupation of the petitioner. In the light of the said order, the petitioner has also paid the above said sum under the receipt issued by the second respondent on 19.1.98. In spite of the clarification issued by the Government on 29.11.99, the respondents have not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus to the respondents, who are bound by law, to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the residential tenement bearing No.46, Old Labour Tenement, Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai. 6. Hence, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus to the respondents, who are bound by law, to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the residential tenement bearing No.46, Old Labour Tenement, Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has produced two orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.4592 of 2004 dated 7.2.2005 and W.P.Nos.13846 of 2001, 13895 of 2002 and 16705 of 2003 dated 10.3.2004 to say that under similar circumstances when similarly situated persons approached this Court with the same prayer to execute the sale deeds in respect of the labour tenements under their occupation after the payment of Rs.9,600/-towards sale price, this Court allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to execute the sale deeds after proper verification expeditiously. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing these writ petitions also. 7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in W.P.No.41586 of 2002 opposing the prayer of M. Abdul Shukeer. The stand taken for opposing the relief for execution of the sale deed is that the petitioner having retired from the organisation as Works Inspector during 1999, is not coming under the category of industrial labourer and therefore he cannot be termed as a person belonging to economically weaker section as per the G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 24.3.97. It was further pleaded that the ownership of the tenement could not be transferred to the petitioner herein for the above reason and therefore the cost of Rs.9,600/- paid by the petitioner has been ordered to be refunded by the impugned proceedings. Hence, the impugned order shall not be interfered with by this Court. 8. No counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.41587 of 2002. Similarly, one another counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.41588 of 2002 by taking the stand that clause 5 of the allotment order states that if an employee is transferred or dismissed from service or he himself resigned his job, the fact should be brought to the notice of the office and the employee should not let out the tenement to any one else on his own accord and the tenement of the employee should also be handed over to the Corporation immediately. It was further pleaded that since the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.93 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, his possession of the tenement without surrendering the same either to his employer viz., TANSI Engineering Works or to the respondents is unsustainable and therefore he is not entitled to the relief of mandamus to register the sale deed. Even though the tenement was allotted to the petitioner while he was working in TANSI Engineering Works, the said tenements were constructed only for the weaker sections of the society to be rented at subsidized rate of Rs.11/- per month. Since the petitioner is an employee of the Government and has been paid the House Rent Allowance over and above the subsidized rate, he is not entitled to the execution of the sale deed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. It is not in dispute that Mr. M. Abdul Sukheer, the petitioner in W.P.No.41586 of 2002, while serving as Maistry in the Industrial Estate, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited from the year 1967, was allotted a residential tenement bearing No.D-16, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai by order dated 30.3.76 on rental basis. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, he has to pay the rent regularly and the petitioner was also paying the rent and other dues. Subsequently, the Government took a decision to convey and transfer the ownership of the tenement to the respective allottees on payment of a sum of Rs.9,600/- as the sale price for each tenement and G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97 was also issued in this regard. On the basis of the said Government Order, the respondents passed an order in Na.Ka.No.734/A4/97 dated 14.11.97 and directed the petitioner also to pay a sum of Rs.9,600/- as the sale price for conveying the tenement, which was already in his possession and enjoyment. The petitioner also admittedly paid the sale price of Rs.9,600/- on 17.11.97 and the same was also acknowledged by the second respondent. But subsequently no steps were taken to execute the sale deed in his favour in spite of several representations. The petitioner also admittedly paid the sale price of Rs.9,600/- on 17.11.97 and the same was also acknowledged by the second respondent. But subsequently no steps were taken to execute the sale deed in his favour in spite of several representations. One of the memos dated 10.3.98 shows that the SIDCO department has executed the sale deed in respect of 45 allottees of labour tenements after observing the usual formalities if they were eligible as per G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97 and 24.9.97 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. One another communication dated 16.3.98 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of TANSIDCO Limited also shows that the second respondent has implemented the Government Order by issuing the sale deeds to all the eligible occupants of the labour tenements on collection of the cost of money as determined by the Government together with rental arrears, if any, in accordance with the Government Order mentioned above in respect of 21 employees. Yet another communication issued by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board dated 9.12.99 also shows that out of 2930 houses maintained by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, sale deeds have been issued for 1121 houses. Paragraph-3 of the communication bearing D.O. Letter No.GR.II.3/32884A/97 dated 9.12.99 clearly shows that as per condition no.10 stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 24.3.97, the retired and legal heirs of the deceased labourers were also eligible to receive the sale deeds. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents taking a stand that if an allottee of a labour tenement retires from service or resigned his job, he should handover the tenement to the department cannot be accepted. 11. Further, when G.O.Ms.No.53, Industries (Spl.) Department dated 22.1.73 also clarifies that the designation of "Maistry" shall be changed as "Work Inspector" and the Work Inspector be called as "Technical Assistant" in the construction branch of the Industries Directorate, it cannot be construed that the petitioners shall not come under the economically weaker section of the society, as the order of allotment clearly shows that they were allotted the tenements only when they were serving as Maistry, Wireman and Welder respectively in the TANSIDCO units. Hence, they cannot be construed as Gazetted Officers so as to disqualify them from the allotment of the labour tenements in question. 12. Hence, they cannot be construed as Gazetted Officers so as to disqualify them from the allotment of the labour tenements in question. 12. Be that as it may, when the order dated 9.12.99 issued by the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board clearly shows that even the retired and legal heirs of the deceased labourers are also eligible to receive the sale deeds, this Court is not able to find any reasonable stand taken in the impugned proceedings to refund the cost of the labour tenement of Rs.9,600/- collected from M. Abdul Sukheer in the year 1997 towards the sale price for conveying the tenement in his favour. For all the above reasons, this Court finds that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the labour tenement in question expeditiously. W.P.No.41586 of 2002 stands allowed. For the very same reasons, W.P.Nos.41587 and 41588 of 2002 are also allowed with a direction to the respondents to execute and register the sale deeds in respect of the residential tenements in question in favour of the petitioners expeditiously. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.