JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondents and quash, as regards the petitioner, the impugned order of allotment issued by the respondents and affixed on 13.11.2014 at the office of the 2nd respondent allotting a house to the petitioner at ''OKKIUM THORAIPAKKAM'', OMR instead of at MARINA area, Nochikuppam, shown as Serial No.71 in the impugned list of allotment under the Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project (ETRP) Scheme and consequently, direct the respondents to allot the reconstructed house under the said ETRP Scheme bearing petitioner''s erstwhile Door No.131, Nochikuppam (Hut), Marina area, Chennai to the petitioner within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon''ble Court.) 1. The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the allotment order dated 13.11.2014, allotting a house to the petitioner at Okkiam Thuraipakkam, OMR, instead of at Marina Area, Nochikuppam. Further, direction is sought for to allot the reconstructed house under the Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project (ETRP) Scheme bearing petitioner''s erstwhile Door No.131, Nochikuppam (Hut), Marina area, Chennai. 2. The petitioner states that she belongs to Fishermen community and was affected by Tsunami in the year 2004. The house, which belonged to the petitioner was destroyed. Under the Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project (ETRP) Scheme, the respondents aided by the World Bank, asked the affected persons to vacate their original place for dwelling in Marina Area (Known as ''Nochikuppam''), where the Fishermen community were living over a period of 50 years. The temporary quarters were allotted to the nearby area until the permanent structures are constructed. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that she was residing in Marina area (Nochikuppam area) for more than 50 years and the fresh allotment was made to her at Okkiam Thuraipakkam (OMR), which is far away and thus, they are not in a position to perform their fishing activities to lead their life, since the livelihood of the petitioner is affected. She has made an application to the authorities to allot a tenement at Marina area, which was not considered and thus, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition. 4. She has made an application to the authorities to allot a tenement at Marina area, which was not considered and thus, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that several illegal and irregular allotments were made under the said ETRP scheme, more specifically, in favour of the police officials working in the Police Department in the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has given a list, where illegal appointments were made to the police officials and the said list submitted by the petitioner is as under: 5. Apart from the list submitted by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that many other allotments were made in violation of the terms and conditions stipulated for allotment and contrary to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Board Act and Rules in force. The petitioner could not able to identify all such illegal allotments, since she is a poor women belonging to the Fishermen community and thriving hard to secure a tenement in the Marina area. 6. In view of the serious allegations raised by the petitioner regarding the illegal allotment in violation of the scheme and in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, this Court on 14.03.2023, directed the concerned officials to be present before this Court on 16.06.2023 (today) along with the files and (1) Mr.A.Kargam, Assistant Secretary (Tenements), TNUHDB, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-5; (2) Mr.T.Muregesan, Executive Engineer – 5, TNUHDB, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-5; (3) Mr.R.Mohan, Estate Officer – 5, TNUHDB, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 5 are present before this Court along with the files. 7. The officials of the respondents / Slum Clearance Board, renamed as Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board made a submission that about 10,000 allotments were made under the scheme during the relevant point of time and the District Level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the District Collector concerned, selected the candidates based on the norms fixed. Violations, if any are not scrutinized or gone into by the Slum Clearance Board and the list given was acted upon by the Slum Clearance Board and therefore, the Slum Clearance Board is not fully aware of any such illegal or irregular appointments made in violation of the scheme or the provisions of the Act and Rules. 8. Violations, if any are not scrutinized or gone into by the Slum Clearance Board and the list given was acted upon by the Slum Clearance Board and therefore, the Slum Clearance Board is not fully aware of any such illegal or irregular appointments made in violation of the scheme or the provisions of the Act and Rules. 8. In view of the said submissions made on behalf of the respondents/Slum Clearance Board, this Court is of the considered opinion that an enquiry is warranted to cull out the irregularities and illegalities, if any made in the matter of allotment of tenements under the scheme. 9. Right to get allotment is conferred under the scheme to the persons, who are homeless. The eligibility criteria are also fixed under the scheme. The procedures to be adopted are contemplated under the Act and Rules. Depriving poor is unconstitutional. Equal opportunity is the constitutional mandate. Thus, suppressing poor homeless people and granting allotment to the Government servants or affordable persons are not only unconstitutional, but a serious offence under the provisions of the Act since the scheme is implemented from and out of the public money by the public authorities. Thus, any illegality in the matter of allotment of tenement to the poor homeless people at no circumstances be compromised or the officials, who have involved in such irregularities and illegalities cannot be spared and they must be accountable and answerable to the public and to the law. 10. In the present case, the husband of the writ petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police. The learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court with reference to the statement given by the petitioner, which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent. In the said statement, the petitioner has stated that her husband was working as Sub-Inspector of Police for about 8 years in D3, Ice House Police Station. Her son Mr.Saravana Kumar completed B.Com., degree and was working in a private organization. 11. That being the factum, the petitioner is not eligible for any allotment and even the allotment made in Okkiam Thuraipakkam (OMR) is not in accordance with the scheme conditions. Thus, the petitioner is also not eligible for any allotment under the ETRP scheme or under any other scheme of the Slum Clearance Board. 12. 11. That being the factum, the petitioner is not eligible for any allotment and even the allotment made in Okkiam Thuraipakkam (OMR) is not in accordance with the scheme conditions. Thus, the petitioner is also not eligible for any allotment under the ETRP scheme or under any other scheme of the Slum Clearance Board. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following orders are passed: (1) The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition stands rejected. (2) The respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry in respect of all the allotments made under the scheme by verifying the eligibility criteria and procedure adopted for selection and other conditions stipulated with reference to the scheme, provisions of the Act and Rules. (3) If any illegal allotments or irregularities are identified, then all necessary actions are to be initiated to cancel all such allotments made illegally or in violation of the scheme conditions or Act and Rules by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules. In such circumstances, the allotments are to be granted to the eligible persons after verifying their eligibility in accordance with the rules. 13. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.