JUDGMENT S.M.Subramaniam, J. The occupants of the Government Rented Residential Quarters under the Public quota are the petitioners in these writ petitions. The writ petitioners are in occupation of the Government Rented Quarters in various parts of Chennai City and more specifically, all such Government Quarters are situated in heart of the City. The dispute is in relation to the fixation of rent in respect of the occupants of the Government Rented Quarters maintained by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 2. The Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) dated 04.07.2017 and the consequential covering Letter No.Va.Va.P.1/46173/2010 dated 07.07.2017 and the demand Letter No.P.Pa.Ko/00029/2017 dated 27.07.2017 are sought to be quashed. Further, a direction is sought for to direct the respondents to receive the old monthly rent from the petitioners tenanted premises situated in various part of the City. 3. The petitioners have raised the issues by stating that they had been allotted the Government Rented Quarters under the Public quota provided by the Government in various Government Quarters within the City. The Government of Tamil Nadu, during the year 1970 with a view to elevate the poor and downtrodden people of the society coming to the city for finding jobs and who were facing difficulty in getting flats for rent had directed the second respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board to build housing flats at various part of Chennai city to provide affordable flats at rent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had constructed flats at Peters Road, CIT Nagar, Cox Square, Foreshore Estate, Mandaveli over the lands belonging to the Government. Subsequently, the Government for maintenance and for providing other facilities to the tenants in all such buildings had appointed the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is maintaining all such Residential Quarters situated in various places within the city. 4. The 2nd respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in the year 2002 raised a proposal to the Government to enhance the monthly rent of all the rental buildings in and around Chennai and the Government accepting the said proposal issued G.O.Ms.No.210, Housing and Urban Development (HB 5(1)) Department dated 21.08.2002. The Government had fixed rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq.ft for all the Board's rental houses/flats in Chennai and Rs. 3/- per sq.ft for all the Board's houses/flats in moffusil areas. The Government had fixed rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq.ft for all the Board's rental houses/flats in Chennai and Rs. 3/- per sq.ft for all the Board's houses/flats in moffusil areas. At that point of time, some of the occupants approached the Hon'ble High Court and an order was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3292/2002 dated 15.06.2006. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to evaluate the situation by collecting materials, and accordingly, the Court fixed the rent at the rate of 2.50 per sq.ft. in Chennai City except Cox square and Rs. 1.50 per sq.ft. in as far as the individual houses and the rent was fixed at Rs. 3/- per sq.ft. the increased rent for the mofussil area was fixed at Rs. 1.50/- per sq.ft. 5. The petitioners claim that they are all paying the monthly rent punctually and without committing any default. 6. Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, forcibly contended that the impugned Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017 is unreasonable on the ground that the Government has enhanced the monthly rent without reference to any materials available on record. The enhancement of rent is exorbitant and it was fixed with retrospective effect. Therefore, the impugned Government order and the consequential order are liable to be scrapped. 7. The petitioner states that the very purpose and object of providing public quota is to ensure that poor and needy people get rental accommodation within the city at a concessional rate. This being the object of the scheme introduced in the year 1970, enhancement of rent exorbitantly will defeat the very purpose of grant of public quota to these poor people, who all are in occupation of the Government Rented quarters now under the maintenance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Thus, the enhancement of rent made in the impugned Government order is untenable. 8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that pursuant to the interim order, the writ petitioners have deposited 50% of the arrears of rent. This apart, they were periodically paying the rent as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Thus, the enhancement now made cannot be in violation of the assurance given by the respondents in this regard. 9. This apart, they were periodically paying the rent as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Thus, the enhancement now made cannot be in violation of the assurance given by the respondents in this regard. 9. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the enhancement of rent is unreasonable and the petitioners had been allotted Government Rented Housing Quarters on public Quota long back and therefore, such an enhancement will affect their rights ensured, with reference to the object sought to be achieved with reference to the public quota. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the entire contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners by stating that the writ petitioners are in occupation of the Government Rented Quarters, which is being maintained by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as per the orders of the Government. Some of the writ petitioners, who were in occupation of the Government Rented Quarters, were already vacated and they have vacated without paying the arrears of rent. Secondly, few other persons are the chronic defaulters on the payment of monthly rent and continuing in occupation. Thirdly, some other petitioners have not even paid the 50% of the arrears of rent, directed to be paid as per the interim orders of this Court in these batch of writ petitions. 11. Thus, the learned Additional Advocate General brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions can be categorized in three parts. (I) Persons, who are continuing in occupation of the Government Rented Quarters without paying the monthly rent. (II) Persons, who had already vacated the Government Rented Quarters and not paid the arrears of rent. (III) Persons, who have not even paid the 50% of the arrears of rent, directed to be deposited by this Court by way of an interim order in all these batch of writ petitions. 12. In view of the fact that the petitioners themselves were violated the conditions of allotment and flouted the interim orders passed by this Court, they are not entitled for any relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. 13. 12. In view of the fact that the petitioners themselves were violated the conditions of allotment and flouted the interim orders passed by this Court, they are not entitled for any relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further brought to the notice of this Court that most of the Government Rented Quarters are in dilapidated condition and the Government has already taken a policy decision to demolish all such old buildings and re-construct new buildings in the interests of the occupants and to maintain the quality and standards. All these houses under the occupation of the writ petitioners are very old and most of the houses are not fit for dwelling. In respect of some other buildings, the Government ordered, for vacating the premises and few occupants were vacated and the Government submitted proposals for re-construction of all these buildings for the purpose of allotting the same to the eligible persons in accordance with the rules in force. Thus, in respect of few petitioners, they have no option, but to vacate the premises on account of the fact that the buildings in their occupation are in a dilapidated condition and not fit for dwelling and further some of them are not paying the rent properly. Under these circumstances, it is certainly necessary for the Government to take a policy decision in respect of these allotments and by re-constructing all such very old buildings, which were constructed long back. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General in respect of the fixation of rent, brought to the notice of this Court that fixation of rent is enhanced occasionally and by considering various factors, prevailing in the city. The rent fixed long back, cannot be continued for many years. However, the enhancement of rent was not made periodically by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the same is being done only on few occasions. Thus, the ground of unreasonableness raised on behalf of the writ petitioners have no substance at all. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.8, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 05.01.1993, enhancing the rent by 5% annually for the residential buildings and 10% for non-residential buildings. After the year 1993, the enhancement of rent was made only in the year 2002 in G.O.Ms.No.210, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 21.08.2002. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.8, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 05.01.1993, enhancing the rent by 5% annually for the residential buildings and 10% for non-residential buildings. After the year 1993, the enhancement of rent was made only in the year 2002 in G.O.Ms.No.210, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 21.08.2002. Therefore, it is not as if, the respondents are enhancing the rent every year. The enhancement of rent is not done periodically and in fact, the same has been done occasionally. This being the factum, there is no reason for the writ petitioners to agitate in respect of the enhancement of rent made, which is far below the market rent, prevailing in that locality. 15. Even, in respect of the enhancement made in the year 2002, some of the tenants filed the writ petitions and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 18th March 2004 in W.A.No.3292/2002. This Court passed an order, appointing an Advocate Commissioner for evaluation of the market rent and to find out the reasonability in respect of the enhancement made by the respondents. Accordingly, a revised rent was approved and the tenants in occupation were directed to pay the enhanced rent with effect from the year 2002. Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.274, Housing and Urban Development (HB2(2))Department dated 01.07.2004, increasing the Government discretionary quota from 10% to 20%. However, the reasons for such enhancement of discretionary quota has not been explained in the Government order. Thus, the same raises a doubt in the mind of the Court, whether such an exercise is done with some deliberations and by considering various aspects and further, it is not considered, whether increasing of such a discretionary quota will lead to abuse of power by the authorities. It is always the principle to be followed by the administrative authorities that more discretion would lead abuse of power and scope for favouritism and nepotism. Therefore, the discretionary quota must be restricted as far as possible to minimise the discrepancies and inequalities in respect of the Government Rented Quarters to the persons, who all are eligible in an equal manner. In the absence of any reason, the enhancement of discretionary quota is certainly not appreciable and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that, whenever the respondents take a revised policy, all these aspects are to be considered before providing such discretionary quotas. 16. In the absence of any reason, the enhancement of discretionary quota is certainly not appreciable and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that, whenever the respondents take a revised policy, all these aspects are to be considered before providing such discretionary quotas. 16. In respect of the other batch of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 15.06.2006, in W.A.Nos.3292 of 2002 & etc., batch, the Hon'ble Division Bench passed orders in paragraph 23 & 24, which are extracted hereunder: "23. In the light of the undisputed facts, as narrated in the Advocate Commissioner's report, we are of the view that most of the suggestions made by the Advocate Commissioner, with regard to fixation of rent, are appropriate and acceptable. However, the report needs some change, in the light of the circumstances, shown by the counsel for the appellants/petitioners. Therefore, the suggestions made by the Advocate Commissioner have been accepted, to the extent indicated below: (i) The increased rate of rent shall be fixed at Rs. 2.50 per sq.ft. in respect of flats in City of Chennai, except at Cox Square Colony at Chintadripet, since, as mentioned by the Advocate Commissioner, all flats are situated in prime area in the City of Chennai. (ii) The increased rate of rent shall be fixed at Rs. 1.50 sq.ft. for Cox Square area, since it is situated adjacent to slum area and Coovum River. (c) The increased rate of rent shall be fixed at Rs. 3.00 per sq.ft. for all individual houses in Chennai City. (d) The increased rate of rent shall be fixed at Rs. 1.50 per sq.ft. for moffusil area. 24. Though the order dated 18.03.2004, shows that the ultimate rent that may be fixed after considering the report could be made applicable from the time the Housing Board chose to revise the rate, namely, 21.08.2002, it would be appropriate to pass an order that the rent fixed, as mentioned above, could be directed to be made applicable from 1st January 2004, as in the interim order, passed by the Division Bench on 18.03.2004, in view of the request made by the counsel for the appellants/petitioners. Hence, it is, accordingly, ordered. Tamil Nadu Housing Board is directed to collect arrears from the tenants, by giving reasonable time." 17. Hence, it is, accordingly, ordered. Tamil Nadu Housing Board is directed to collect arrears from the tenants, by giving reasonable time." 17. Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.69, Housing and Urban Development [(HB 5(2)] Department dated 22.05.2009, fixing the revised rent. Accordingly, the following rent was imposed with effect from 01.01.2004 and the same, which reads as under: "4. The Division Bench of High Court in its order dated 15.06.2006 has given its final judgment fixing rent to the Board's rental apartments as follows: 1. Board’s rental apartments in City of Chennai except Cox Square colony at Chintadripet Rs.2.50 per Sq.ft. 2. Board’s rental apartments in Cox Square area at Chintadripet Rs.1.50 per Sq.ft. 3. All individual houses in Chennai City Rs.3.00 per Sq.ft. 4. Board’s rental quarters in mofussil area. Rs1.50 per Sq.ft. 18. After the above G.O.Ms.No.69, Housing and Urban Development [(HB 5(2)] Department dated 22.05.2009, no enhancement was made for about 8 years. 19. It is relevant to point out that the developmental activities and the growth rate in Chennai City is enormous on account of the growing IT industries and other developmental activities. It cannot be disputed that Chennai City is witnessing the developments considerably and consequently the property values, land cost are also consistently increased. Even the Sub-urban areas of Chennai City are fastly developed within a short span of years and the rental value, property value are also grown up. It is visibly noticeable that the Per Capita Income, Property value, rental value and the lifestyle of the people in Chennai City have undergone faster changes. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the rent for the Government rental houses also to be increased to match the prevailing market land or atleast little below the prevailing market rent. When Per Capita Income of the Citizen of Chennai City has increased consistently, the rent to be paid to the Government must also be increased, taking note of various factors. The enhancement of rent need not be exactly that of the market value prevailing in that locality. However, the rent to be enhanced atleast to match the prevailing market rent in the particular locality. The principles of exploitations is applicable both to the Government as well as to the tenants, who are in occupation of the Government rental quarters. The enhancement of rent need not be exactly that of the market value prevailing in that locality. However, the rent to be enhanced atleast to match the prevailing market rent in the particular locality. The principles of exploitations is applicable both to the Government as well as to the tenants, who are in occupation of the Government rental quarters. In the event of exploitation by the tenants of the Government rental quarters, then the persons, who are being exploited are the taxpayers' at large. It is the constitutional obligation on the part of the Government to ensure that the public revenue is protected and fixation of rent on par with the market rent is also to be adopted for all purposes. Undoubtedly, the Government has got prerogative power to introduce welfare schemes for the benefit of the people at large. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the public quota in Government rental houses are mostly misused and allotments are made by and large on the basis of favouritism and nepotism and more specifically, even the Government employees are in occupation of the Government houses under public quota, which is certainly impermissible. They get the public quota in the name of their relatives or their family members and the Government employees are residing. All such irregularities and illegalities are to be identified and appropriate actions are to be taken for eviction of such illegal occupants in Government rental quarters. 20. For instance, Peters Road, Royapettah, falls in the heart of the Chennai City. A 500 sq.ft Single Bedroom Flat is rented out for a minimum monthly rent of Rs. 9,775/-. When such being the assessment made in respect of the prevailing market rent, now the writ petitioners are paying only Rs. 1,438/- and Rs. 1,250/- for 500 sq.ft. This Court is unable to accept such a disparity in respect of the fixation of rent for the Government Rented Quarters and the Market Rental Value, prevailing in the same locality. In other words, for a 500 sq.ft flat, the petitioners are paying Rs. 1,438/- and the prevailing market rent in that locality is Rs. 9,775/-. Such a long gap is certainly to be presumed that it is a financial loss to the public revenue. In other words, for a 500 sq.ft flat, the petitioners are paying Rs. 1,438/- and the prevailing market rent in that locality is Rs. 9,775/-. Such a long gap is certainly to be presumed that it is a financial loss to the public revenue. Thus, the enhancement of rent made now through the impugned G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Even, as per the impugned Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017, the rent to be paid by the petitioners for 575 sq.ft flat is Rs. 6,727.50/-. Therefore, the said rent of Rs. 6,727.50/- for 575 sq.ft flat in Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai, cannot be said to be unreasonable. 21. Considering the fact that the prevailing market rent in that locality for 500 sq.ft of Flat is Rs. 9,775/-, this Court is of an opinion that the authorities competent must be vigilant in respect of the collection of monthly rent from all these tenants. There cannot be any lacuna or dereliction on duty in recovering the rent by the officials. In the event of not paying the rent by the tenants, immediate actions are certainly warranted and there cannot be any negligence on the part of the officials in initiating actions in respect of the defaulters. Undoubtedly, when a private building is rented out, no landlord will allow the tenant to occupy his building without payment of rent. When the taxpayers' money is invested for construction of Government buildings within the City and when such buildings constructed from and out of the taxpayers' money are allotted towards public quota as Government Rented Quarters, then the Governmental authorities are equally bound to be vigil in respect of the collection of rent from all the tenants. Any such lapse or dereliction of duty, must be viewed seriously and actions are to be initiated against such officials. In the event of not paying the rent, appropriate actions must be taken for eviction of all the tenants. Contrarily, they cannot allow such tenants to continue for years together in the Government premises without paying any rent. Such an attitude is to be treated as a lapse on the part of the officials also. Undoubtedly, some of the tenants are continuing in the premises without paying the rent by creating litigations after litigations. Contrarily, they cannot allow such tenants to continue for years together in the Government premises without paying any rent. Such an attitude is to be treated as a lapse on the part of the officials also. Undoubtedly, some of the tenants are continuing in the premises without paying the rent by creating litigations after litigations. Such litigative occupants are also to be dealt with properly by filing appropriate petitions before the Court without any delay. 22. Whenever an interim order is granted by the High Courts, it is the duty on the part of the Government officials to file Vacate Stay Petitions immediately and place all the facts before the Courts to consider the merits and the demerits. The interim orders are granted by the Courts at the time of admission of the cases and considering the urgency and the immediate necessity to protect the interest of the litigants concerned. If it is found by the Government officials that such an interim orders were obtained from the Courts by suppression of facts or misleading of facts, then they are bound to act immediately. Their inactions to be construed as negligence and dereliction of duty. 23. In respect of the impugned order issued in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017, this Court is of an opinion that the earlier revision of rent was issued in G.O.Ms.No.69, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 22.05.2009. Now, the revision of rent is done after a lapse of about eight years in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017. 24. The impugned order states that the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has informed that the same procedure has also been adopted for the Government Rental apartments converted into Public Quota by fixing rent of Rs. 2.50/- per sq.ft. in Chennai City and Rs. 1.50 per sq.ft. in Moffusil with effect from 01.01.2004 since no guidelines were issued in respect of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Rental Housing Scheme apartments converted into Public Quota. In this regard, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has requested to enhance the rent, maintenance charge as follows: (i) Monthly rent of Rs. 7.31 per sq.ft. may be fixed. (ii) Revision of rent may be increased to 10% per year. (iii) Maintenance charge at Rs. 250/- per month. In this regard, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has requested to enhance the rent, maintenance charge as follows: (i) Monthly rent of Rs. 7.31 per sq.ft. may be fixed. (ii) Revision of rent may be increased to 10% per year. (iii) Maintenance charge at Rs. 250/- per month. (iv) Water charge may be fixed as per the amount paid to the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 25. The Government, considering the above proposals submitted by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board passed the following orders in paragraphs 4 and 5 and same are extracted hereunder: "4. After careful examination, the Government have decided to enhance the rent and maintenance charge for the allotment in Tamil Nadu Government Servants Rental Housing Scheme Flats by converting into Public Quota as follows:- S.No. Population(Towns/Cities) Monthly rent Maintenance Charge Water charge 1. 50 Lakh and above 1 Rs.7.31/Sq.Ft + 60% over and above of the base rate of Rs.7.31 per sq.ft. Rs.1000/- Water charge will be fixed as per the httpwwwjudis.nic.in amount 2. 5 lakh 50 lakh Rs.7.31/sq.ft. + 30% over and above of the base rate of Rs.7.31 per sq.ft. Rs.800/- Paid to the Chennai metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board 3. Below 5 lakh Rs.7.31/sq.ft Rs.600/- 5. Every year, the rent will be increased by 10% and the maintenance charge will be increased by 5% till further revision." 26. Even as per the impugned order, the enhanced rent comes around Rs. 6,727.50/- for a flat measuring 575 sq.ft. However, the market rent prevailing for 500 sq.ft. flat as of now is nearby the Peters Road, Royapettah is Rs. 9,775/-. This being the factum of the case, this Court is of an opinion that the enhancement of rent cannot be construed as unreasonable. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the very same Government Quarters, the remaining buildings were allotted to the Government employees working in and around the City. The Government servants, who all are in occupation of the said Quarters are paying the monthly rent of Rs. 11,216/-. Thus, when the employees are paying the rent of Rs. 11,216/- for a flat measuring 575 sq.ft and the market rent prevailing in the very same area is Rs. 9,775/- and now, the enhanced rent of Rs. The Government servants, who all are in occupation of the said Quarters are paying the monthly rent of Rs. 11,216/-. Thus, when the employees are paying the rent of Rs. 11,216/- for a flat measuring 575 sq.ft and the market rent prevailing in the very same area is Rs. 9,775/- and now, the enhanced rent of Rs. 6,727.50/- is fixed for the public quota, this Court is of an opinion that even after the enhancement, the same is not in commensuration with the market rent prevailing. However, this Court has to consider the very objective of public quota being granted. 27. The principles of reasonableness and no arbitrariness in actions by the public authorities are the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Arbitrariness by the public authorities can be demonstrated by the existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the decision making process and the decision taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such an action can normally be termed as 'arbitrary'. Where the process of decision making is followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of arbitrariness. Of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration within the scope of judicial review. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the prerequisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision making of the public authority has also become an essential part of our administrative law. 28. An action by a public authority, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action, still such action, especially if it could potentially affects the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in the action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with the principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative nature. Thus, it is made clear that any decision in this regard are to be beyond doubt and the principle of reasonableness and fairness are to be adopted by the Madras High Court, while granting allotment to its own employees. 29. Thus, it is made clear that any decision in this regard are to be beyond doubt and the principle of reasonableness and fairness are to be adopted by the Madras High Court, while granting allotment to its own employees. 29. One more factor to be considered by this Court is that there is an opinion amongst the people at large that as the public quota by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Government is mostly misused and the allotments are made only on favouritism and nepotism. The allotments are not made strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued in this regard. People, who are in power, are able to get such discretionary quotas for the welfare of their own personal servants or to their relatives. Such is the general opinion prevailing amongst the people at large. The allotment under the Public quota are made mostly to the personal staff of the Very Important Persons(VIPs) and some people, who are holding higher posts. Thus, the respondents are bound to review all such cases, where allotments are made contrary to the guidelines and the terms and conditions. When the public quota has been created for the purpose of providing houses to the lower rent to the poor and needy people, who are residing in Chennai City, the same is to be given to such people alone and the quota can never be misused by the officials, by granting allotment to the people, who all are working and well placed. Thus, the respondents are bound to review all such cases, where such allotments made long back. Even in case, where the allotments were made 20 years back or 15 years back and now, the Per capita income and the lifestyle of those occupants are considerably improved, the said allotment is to be cancelled and it is to be provided to the needy people and by following the procedures as contemplated for grant of public quota. In the event of not reviewing all such policies, the State is committing an act of discrimination, which is in violation of the constitutional principles and mandates. When welfare schemes are framed by the State under the constitution of India, the same must be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and for the welfare of the public at large. When welfare schemes are framed by the State under the constitution of India, the same must be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and for the welfare of the public at large. Any misuse or abuse of such welfare schemes are to be noticed, and the State is duty bound to review all such schemes and initiate action against all such wrong doings. In the event of failure on the part of the State, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the actions are not only arbitrary, but unconstitutional. Thus, the respondents are bound to review all such allotments and take appropriate actions and implement the welfare schemes in its real letter and spirit and for the welfare of the needy people, who are falling within the ambit of the scheme and not otherwise. 30. The allotment order issued to the petitioners also stipulates that the petitioners are liable to pay the enhanced rent as and when the revised rent is notified by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Thus, the writ petitioners have agreed to pay the enhanced rent and even in the absence of any such clause in respect of the erstwhile allottees, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioners cannot expect that they can be allowed to continue in the said premises for years together without any enhancement of rent. Only ground to be considered is the principles of reasonableness to be adopted, while fixing the rent in respect of the Government Rented Quarters. As discussed above, the present enhanced rent cannot be said to be unreasonable and in fact, the enhanced rent now fixed is far below the rent fixed in respect of the Government employees, who all are in occupation of the very same Quarters and the market rent prevailing in that locality. Such being the factual position, this Court is of an opinion that the principles of reasonableness as contemplated by the writ petitioners deserves no merit consideration. 31. This Court cannot brush aside the fact that the respondents/Housing Board are also not maintaining the Government Rental accommodations to the expectations of the occupants. In other words, poor maintenance of the Government Residential Quarters is also to be condemned. 31. This Court cannot brush aside the fact that the respondents/Housing Board are also not maintaining the Government Rental accommodations to the expectations of the occupants. In other words, poor maintenance of the Government Residential Quarters is also to be condemned. When the respondents are enhancing the rent and collecting maintenance charges, they are duty bound to maintain the building in all respects, enabling the occupants to reside with their family peacefully. There are complaints that these Government Rental accommodations are not being maintained properly by the officials. Thus, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that the respondents are duty bound to maintain all such buildings in the manner prescribed under the rules for maintenance. 32. In view of the fact that the enhanced rent is not exorbitant or fixed beyond the market rent prevailing in Chennai City. More specifically, in the locality, where the petitioners are in occupation of the Government Rented Quarters, this Court is of an opinion that the impugned order deserves no interference. Further, in view of the fact that the learned Additional Advocate General brought to the notice of this Court that some of the petitioners have not paid the rent and committing default in payment of rent and some of the petitioners, who vacated the building have not paid the rent and some of the petitioners have not complied with the interim orders of this Court in respect of the payment of 50% of arrears of rent. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the dilapidated houses unfit for dwelling, the respondents had issued notices to the tenants. On account of the present writ petitions, further actions are kept in abeyance. Thus, the following orders are to be passed in the interests of all concerned. (i) The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017 stands confirmed. (ii) The petitioners, who all are in occupation of the dilapidated houses, unfit for dwelling are to be evicted pursuant to the notices issued to them with reference to the conditions stipulated in the allotment. (i) The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017 stands confirmed. (ii) The petitioners, who all are in occupation of the dilapidated houses, unfit for dwelling are to be evicted pursuant to the notices issued to them with reference to the conditions stipulated in the allotment. (iii) The respondents are directed to verify the eligibility criteria of all those occupants under discretionary quota and if it is found that the allotments were made contrary to the purposes, objects and the terms and conditions of the Government orders, then initiate immediate action for eviction of all those illegal or irregular occupants. (iv) In respect of the petitioners, who have not paid the monthly rent and not vacated the premises, the respondents are directed to initiate all further actions to recover the arrears of rent and other statutory charges by following the procedures as contemplated under law. (v) In respect of the petitioners, who have not complied with the interim order of this Court by depositing 50% of the arrears of rent, the respondents are directed issue notice as contemplated and accordingly, evict all those petitioners by following the procedures within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vi) The petitioners, who all are the defaulters in payment of rent and continuing the Government Rented Quarters are also to be evicted by following the procedures as contemplated under law. (vii) In respect of the existing Government Rental accommodations, the respondents are directed to maintain the same properly and in accordance with the Maintenance Rules without any default. (vii) The respondents are directed to complete the said exercise within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 33. With these directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.