WP/20757/2008 of Smt. Y. Savithri Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration on 30 December 2008

O r d e r:

The petitioner is an Assistant Section Officer in the GeneralAdministration Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad. She states that she is entitled to allotment of “A” typequarter, and accordingly she made a request to respondent No.1,namely the Government, to allot “A” type quarter, but the Government,vide orders issued in Memo dated 28.01.2004, have allotted her “B”type quarter, bearing No. B-101, Government Quarters, PatigaddaColony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, and she having taken possessionthereof, is presently residing therein. While so, she states that sheagain made a representation to the Government for allotment of “A”type quarter, and the Government, having considered herrepresentation and eligibility, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 946,General Administration (Accom.) Department, dated 20.12.2007,allotting her “A” type quarter bearing No. A-17, Government Quarters,Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, on exchange basis. The petitioner states that she was required to occupy the said quarterwithin eight days, but she could not do so because the incumbent,namely Sri. T. Satyanarayana, who is in occupation of the quarter, did notvacate same, even though he retired from service on 31.07.2008.

The petitioner states that respondent No.2, who was inoccupation of “C” type quarter, submitted application for allotment of“A” type quarter, but the Government vide orders issued in Memo dated18.07.2008, informed her that she is not eligible for allotment of “A”type quarter. Thereafter, vide orders issued in Memo dated06.08.2008, the Government informed respondent No.2 that Quarter No. A-18 was already allotted to some other officer, and therefore, shemay choose any other vacant quarters. However, contrary to the saidorders, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 586, GeneralAdministration (Accom.B) Department, dated 12.09.2008, allottingQuarter No. A-17 to respondent No. 2. On the very same day, theGovernment having considered the representation of the incumbent,namely Sri. T. Satyanarayana, for extension of time, issued orders inMemo dated 12.09.2008, permitting him to retain the quarter for aperiod of three months w.e.f. 01.08.2008 on payment of rentsregularly. The said Sri. T. Satyanarayana, continued in the saidquarter till 24.09.2008, and he vacated the same on his wife beingallotted Quarter No. C-30 in the same colony. Thereafter, theGovernment issued orders in Memo dated 27.09.2008, requesting theEstate Officer, Hyderabad, to keep in abeyance of giving and takingpossession of Quarter No. A-17. However, a day before issuance ofthe said Memo, the petitioner states that respondent No.2 on the basisof the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 586, GeneralAdministration (Accom.B) Department, dated 12.09.2008, occupiedQuarter No. A-17, which in fact, was allotted to her by the Governmentvide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, General Administration(Accom.) Department, dated 20.12.2007.

Hence, questioning the orders issued by the Government inG.O. Ms. No. 586, General Administration (Accom.B) Department,dated 12.09.2008, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No.2 bycanceling the allotment of the said quarter made in her favour earliervide G.O. Ms. No. 946, General Administration (Accom.) Department,dated 20.12.2007, the petitioner filed the present writ petition todeclare the said G.O. as illegal and arbitrary, and violative of principlesof natural justice and, consequently to set aside the same.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Quarter

No. A-17 at Patigadda Colony, was in fact, allotted to the petitioner bythe Government vide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated20.12.2007, on exchange basis, and as the incumbent did not vacatethe quarter, as is evident from the orders issued by the Government inthe Memo dated 12.09.2008, which permitted the incumbent to retainthe quarter for three months, the petitioner could not occupy thequarter, and therefore, the Government could not have, at the instanceof respondent No.2, issued the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated12.09.2008, canceling the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated20.12.2007, and allotting Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No.2, andmore so without issuing any notice and in sheer violation of theprinciples of natural justice. Hence, he submitted that the impugnedG.O. issued by the Government be declared as illegal and arbitrary,and consequently to set aside the same and allow the writ petition.

On behalf of respondent No.1, their Principal Secretary in theGAD Department, has filed detailed counter. The learned GovernmentPleader for GAD, reiterating the counter averments submitted thatthough the petitioner was allotted Quarter No. A-17 as far back as on20.12.2007, she has failed to occupy the same. The petitioner is noteligible for allotment of “A” type Quarter, but having regard to theprovisions of Rule 13(4) of the Allotment of Government QuartersRules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), the same wasallotted to her on humanitarian grounds on exchange basis. Headmitted that the request of respondent No.2 for allotment of “A” typequarter was earlier rejected by the Government, but the Hon’ble ChiefMinister, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 20 of theRules, directed allotment of Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No. 2 onexchange basis. He submitted that since the petitioner has notoccupied the quarter, no right accrued to her, and as such, no noticeneed be issued to her before canceling the allotment made in her favour. He however, submitted that some “A” type quarters are vacant,and if the petitioner submits application, her case would be consideredfor allotment of any of the said vacant quarters. Hence, he prayed thatthe writ petition be dismissed.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that theGovernment having considered the request of respondent No.2,particularly in the light of the fact that her mother is an old aged ladysuffering from diabetes and blood pressure, has in exercise of powerconferred under Rule 20 of the Rules, allotted Quarter No. A-17 to her, and no fault can be found with such action ofrespondent No.1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedGovernment Pleader for GAD for respondent No.1-Government andthe learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Conclusion

Admittedly, on the request made by the petitioner for allotmentof quarter, the Government having considered her eligibility, hadissued orders in Memo dated 28.01.2004, allotting Quarter No. B-101at Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, to her, wherein she ispresently residing. Thereafter, the Government having consideredanother representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2007, issuedorders in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to the petitioner on exchange basis and on vacation of the saidquarter by the incumbent, namely Sri. T. Satyanarayana, who was inoccupation of the said quarter. Even though Sri. T. Suryanarayana,retired from service on 31.07.2008, the fact remains, he did not vacatethe Quarter immediately, facilitating the petitioner to occupy the saidquarter. However, the incumbent made a representation to theGovernment on 26.08.2008, seeking extension of time by threemonths, to vacate the quarter. The Government acceding to suchrequest of the incumbent, vide orders issued in Memo dated 12.09.2008, permitted him to retain the quarter for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.08.2008. The said order reads as follows:

The attention of Sti. T. Satyanarayana, Asst. Secretary (Retd) is invited tothe reference cited.

2. Government have examined the request of Sri. T. Satyanarayana, Asst.Secretary (Retd) and permit him to retain the Govt Quarter No. A-17, PatigaddaColony for a period of three (3) months in total w.e.f. 1.8.2008 by paying the rent asper G.O. Ms. No. 123, G.A. (Accom.B) Dept., dated 3.3.2008. He is requested tovacate the Govt. Quarter after the permissible period duly clearing the Electricity andWater Bills.

3. The Estate Officer, Hyderabad, is requested to take necessary action in thematter accordingly.

From the above, it is clear that the incumbent did not vacate theQuarter till 12.09.2008, even though he retired from service on31.08.2008, and according to the admitted stand taken by respondentNo.1 in the counter, the incumbent had vacated the quarter only on24.09.2008 upon his wife being allotted a “C” type quarter. Therefore,obviously the petitioner could not occupy Quarter No. A-17 allotted toher, even though she was allotted the Quarter as far back as on20.12.2007.

Long after allotment of Quarter No. A-17 to the petitioner, itappears that respondent No.2, who is in occupation of “C” type quarterat Patigadda Colony, made representation dated 08.07.2008requesting the Government to allot Quarter No. A-18, on the groundthat she is facing insufficient space problem because of large size ofher family, and the Government having considered the saidrepresentation, vide orders issued in Memo dated 18.07.2008, rejected the said request of respondent No.2, stating as follows:

The attention of Smt. K. Hemalatha is invited to the reference cited and sheis informed that she is not eligible for “A” type quarters in Patigadda Colony. Henceher request is not feasible.

On the very same day, it appears that respondent No.2represented to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to allot Quarter No. A-18 toher. Thereafter, based on the note file dated 24.07.2008, whichensued from the Principal Secretary to CM, the Government issued

orders in another Memo dated 06.08.2008, informing respondent No.2as follows:

The attention of Smt. K. Hemalatha, A.S.O., G.A. (SC-E) Dept. is invited tothe reference 1[st] and 2[nd] cited above, and she is informed that the Qtr. No. A-18 atPatigadda Colony, is already allotted to some other officer as per earlier writtencommitment. Therefore, she is requeted to choose any other vacant Quarter bearingNos. A-2, A-3, A-12, A-15 and A-16 in Patigadda Colony, for allotment.

From the above, it is clear that respondent No.2 had requestedfor allotment of Quarter No. A-18, and though by Memo dated18.07.2008 she was informed that she is not eligible for allotment of“A” type quarter, the fact remains, that pursuant to the orders receivedfrom the Principal Secretary to CM, respondent No.1 by a subsequentMemo dated 06.08.2008, informed respondent No.2 that Quarter No.A-18 is not vacant and as such, requested her to choose any of thevacant quarters, namely Quarter bearing Nos. A-2, A-3, A-12, A-15 andA-16 in Patigadda Colony that were said to be vacant.

Despite issuance of orders, as indicted in the above Memos, theGovernment for the reasons best known to them, have issued G.O. Ms.No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to respondentNo.2, and canceling the earlier orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946,dated 20.12.2007, whereunder the petitioner was allotted Quarter No.A-17. Though respondent No.1, seeks to justify the cancellation ofQuarter No. A-17 allotted to the petitioner vide orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, taking shelter on the provisions ofRule 20 of the Rules, the fact remains, the said Rule obligates theallotting authority, to record reasons in writing, in the event of hisrelaxing all or any of the provisions of the Rules. Neither the notedated 24.07.2008, which emanated from the desk of the PrincipalSecretary to CM nor the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated12.09.2008, issued by the Government, canceling the earlier ordersissued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting Quarter No. A-17 in favour of the petitioner, and allotting the same again to respondent No.2, records any reasons. The note, which emanatedfrom the desk of the Principal Secretary to CM, in fact, states that theHon’ble Chief Minister has agreed for allotment of Quarter No. A-18, Patigadda Colony to Mrs. K. Hemalatha in relaxation of theRules, and necessary orders may please be issued. The said noteonly states that the Hon’ble Chief Minister had agreed for allotment ofQuarter No. A-18 to respondent No.2, but it nowhere states thatrespondent No.2 should be allotted Quarter No. A-17, much less bycanceling the earlier orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting the said quarter to the petitioner.

It appears that merely basing on the representation ofrespondent No.2, the impugned G.O. was issued. The impugned G.O.leave alone recording any reasons, does not even refer to the note thatemanated from the desk of the Principal Secretary to CM. The groundon which respondent No.2 sought allotment of “A” type quarter is thatshe is having large sized family, and in fact, this reason is not evenreflected in the impugned G.O. On the other hand, the ground onwhich the petitioner sought allotment of “A” type quarter is that hermother-in-law underwent hip joint surgery and that she is takingtreatment at Yashoda Hospital.

Be that as it may, in the allotment of quarters, particularly inexercise of discretionary powers, and in relaxation of the Rules ofallotment, the interests of justice demand that allotments should bebased on sound and plausible reasons, justifying the relaxation of theRules, and allotments cannot be made on the basis of the requests ofthe type made by respondent No.2, especially large size of her family. Allotment of quarters on the basis of size of the family of the employeecan never be the criteria for allotment. Allotment of big, medium andsmall size quarters, should be based on the post one holds in theadministrative hierarchy and the salary he draws. The higher the post, the bigger the size of the quarter he is entitled to, and lower the post,the smaller the size of the quarter he is entitled to, and this difference iscreated with a view to ensure that the high ranking officer occupies aquarter, befitting his status in the society. It may be that a high rankingofficer in the hierarchy drawing a higher pay has a small family, and alower ranking employee drawing a lesser pay has a big family, but thatdoes not mean, that the high ranking officer who has a small familyshould be allotted small quarter and a lower ranking employee, whohas a large family, should be allotted a big quarter. If the ground onwhich the government had allotted Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No.2 is to be accepted, then a high ranking employee will end up payinghuge rent for a small quarter, and a low ranking employee will pay lessrent for a big quarter, which certainly would not be in the fitness ofthings and would offend the equality clause.

Thus, it is clear that the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated12.09.2008, issued by the government, canceling the earlier G.O. Ms.No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to the petitionerand allotting the same again to respondent No. 2, is without anyreason and basis, much less in tune with Rule 20 of the Rules, whichobligates recording of reasons by the allotting authority, in the eventthe quarter is to be allotted by relaxing the Rules of allotment. Respondent No.1 having informed respondent No.2 vide Memo dated06.08.2008, that Quarter No. A-18 has already been allotted to someother officer, and he having further informed respondent No.2 tochoose any other vacant quarter bearing Nos. A-2, A-3, A-12, A-15 andA-16 in Patigadda Colony, I fail to understand how he could have issued the impugned G.O. Ms.No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, canceling the allotment of Quarter No. A-17 made earlier in favour of the petitioner under G.O. Ms.

No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, and allotting the same to respondent No.

It is the contention of respondent No.1 that since the petitionerhas not occupied the quarter, the same was cancelled. This standtaken by respondent No.1 is shocking. According to the ownadmission of respondent No.1 in the counter, the incumbent of QuarterNo. A-17, had vacated Quarter No. A-17 same on 24.09.2008, thoughhe retired from service on 31.7.2008. The government havingthemselves vide Memo dated 12.09.2008, permitted the incumbent toretain the quarter for a period of three months, and the incumbenthaving vacated the said quarter on 24.09.2008, much after issuance ofG.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, canceling the allotment made infavour of the petitioner vide G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, I failto understand how respondent No.1 can take a stand in the counterthat since the petitioner did not occupy the quarter even though thesame was allotted to her as far back as on 20.12.2007, the allotmentwas cancelled. This stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter, isabsolutely absurd, and does not stand to reason, and in fact, runscontrary to the orders issued by the Government in Memo dated12.09.2008 permitting the incumbent to retain the quarter for a periodof three months.

The stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter that thepetitioner is not eligible for allotment of “A” type quarter, also does notstand to reason, because it is not their case that by canceling theallotment made in favour of an ineligible person, they wanted to allotthe same to an eligible person, and on the other hand, they sought to,and in fact, have allotted the quarter to respondent No.2, who it is said,is ineligible to be allotted “A” type quarter and is eligible to be allottedonly “C” type quarter, which quarter, in fact, she was allotted and wasalso residing therein.

The petitioner, admittedly, was allotted Quarter No. A-17, by the Government as far back as on 20.12.2007, by issuance of G.O. Ms. No.946, and the petitioner having acquired a right to occupy Quarter No.A-17 on the basis of the said G.O., respondent No.1 before cancelingthe said allotment, ought to have issued notice to the petitioner, andsince the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, admittedly,has been issued without notice to the petitioner, the same obviouslysuffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice, andcannot be sustained.

The manner in which respondent No.1 issued the impugnedG.O., taking a diametrically opposite view to the earlier stands taken byhim, would clearly go to show that he has issued the same not only inviolation of the note that emanated from the desk of the PrincipalSecretary to CM, but also his own orders issued earlier and in violationof the principles of natural justice. Respondent No.1, being an officer,vested with the power to protect the interests of the general public,cannot act arbitrarily and pass orders favouring persons of his choice,much less by violating his own orders issued earlier and withoutassigning or recording any reasons, allegedly in the guise ofexercising discretionary powers, which powers, the law is well settled,are to be exercised judiciously and supported by plausible andexplicable reasons.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned G.O. Ms. No.586, dated 12.09.2008 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed tovacate Quarter No. A-17 at Patigadda Colony, Begumpet,Secunderabad, and hand over the same to the Estates Officer,Hyderabad, forthwith. Thereupon, the Estates Officer, shall permit thepetitioner to occupy Quarter No. A17, Patigadda Colony, on thestrength of G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007immediately. No costs.

________________

Dated: 30[th] December, 2008.KSR

N.V. RAMANA, J.