Malliga v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR W.P. No.114 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.130 of 2025 S. Malliga Petitioner vs.
1.
The District Collector O/o.Collectorate Namakkal District 2.
The Tahsildar Sendhamangalam Namakkal District 3.
The Revenue Inspector Sendhamangalam Namakkal District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the petitioner opportunity of personal hearing before passing any orders based on the show cause notice dated 29.11.2024 issued under Section 7 of Madras Act III of 1905.
For petitioner Mr. S. Saravanakumar - - - - - 1/16
ORDER
(made by M. SUNDAR, J.) Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} pertains to proceedings under 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}.
2.
Writ petitioner was visited with a 'Show Cause Notice' {'SCN'} under Section 7 of said 1905 Act and the writ petitioner has responded to the same i.e., shown cause vide response dated 07.12.2024.
3.
Mr.S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that simple prayer of writ petitioner is to direct R3 to provide a personal hearing before making orders under Section 6 of said 1905 Act.
4.
We carefully considered the arguments and we also perused the case file. At the outset, we find that there is no acknowledgment for 07.12.2024 response but we express no opinion on the same as this is Admission Board.
2/16
5.
Be that as it may, there is no disputation about the position that no rules for considering the response to Section 7 notice have been framed.
6.
Another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.12.2019 in W.A.No.4073 of 2019, upheld a order of one of us sitting as a single Judge (M.Sundar, J.) in State Bank of India Officers case law, [State Bank of India Officer's Association (CC)-SBIOA Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Chennai-1 in W.P.No.22634 of 2019 decided on 01.08.2019].
7.
In this State Bank of India Officers case, a principle that the expression 'affording an opportunity' does not make a personal hearing imperative, was laid down. In the case on hand, Section 7 of said 1905 Act only mandates that a notice calling upon a person concerned to show cause before a certain date i.e., show cause as to why he should not be proceeded under Section 6 of said 1905 Act, shall be served. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that personal hearing is statutorily imperative before an order under Section 6 of said 1905 Act is made. In another matter, adverting to State Bank of India Officers case, this Court had followed the principle that personal hearing is not imperative and that it is only at the discretion 3/16
of the authority concerned depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the cause shown. This is vide order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.No.28696 of 2017 which reads as follows: 4/16
5/16
6/16
7/16
8/16
9/16
10/16
11/16
12/16
13/16
14/16
8.
In the light of the aforementioned principle, captioned WP fails to pass muster in the Admission Board.
Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP is dismissed. Consequently, captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' {hereinafter 'WMP' for the sake of brevity} thereat also perishes with the main WP. In other words, captioned WMP is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 06.01.2025 Index: Yes/No NC : Yes/No cad 15/16
M. SUNDAR, J.
and K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad To:
1.
The District Collector O/o.Collectorate Namakkal District 2.
The Tahsildar Sendhamangalam Namakkal District 3.
The Revenue Inspector Sendhamangalam Namakkal District 06.01.2025 16/16