HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26263 OF 2010 DATED 5th NOVEMBER,2014.
BETWEEN M/s. Rajalaxmi Monuments, rep. by its Prop. Mrs. P./Rajyalakshmi, Ongole, Prakasam Dist.
….Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26263 of 2010.
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is a graduate and belongs to Scheduled Caste community. She proposed to run Granites, slabs and tiles business for her livelihood. She registered her business with the Small Scale Industries Department and submitted an application to the respondents for allotment of a plot at Gundlapalli Growth Centre. Her application was processed and the Plot Allotment Committee recommended for allotment of plot to her. The third respondent vide letter dated 06.03.2010 communicated her that they allotted the special plot and finally asked her to pay a sum of Rs.13,49,068/- within 90 days from the date of receipt of the said order. But in the month of May, 2010 her father suffered heart attack and he was admitted in the Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad in the first week of June, 2010. He was again admitted in the hospital on 15.09.2010 and undergone an Open Heart Surgery, but died on 06.10.2010. In view thereof, the petitioner could not pay the requisite amount as per the allotment order dated 06.03.2010. The third respondent sent a letter on 01.10.2010 cancelling the provisional allotment. The petitioner approached respondents 3 and 4 and pleaded not to cancel allotment of plot. They accepted the request of the petitioner and asked her to pay the requisite amount and accordingly she obtained two banker’s cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- and 8,49,068/-, dated 4.10.2010 and 5.10.2010 respectively drawn at State Bank of India, Ongole and submitted to the fourth respondent with a covering letter addressed to the third respondent. She under took to pay penalty for the late payment. On 06.10.2010 the third respondent recommended to the second respondent to condone the delay in making the payment and to restore the allotment of plot to the petitioner. The fourth respondent on 12.10.2010 informed the petitioner that the second respondent-Coroporation considered her representation and condoned the delay and passed orders to make the payment with interest and penalty at the rate of 2% for restoration of the land. When she was making the amounts ready for payment, she was surprised to receive a letter on 14.10.2010 from the fourth respondent informing her that they cancelled her allotment and that they are proposing to allot the plot to third party. In the circumstances, she sought some requisite documents under the Right to Information Act and the same revealed that the petitioner was informed on 12.10.2010 regarding restoration of allotment of plot and condonation of delay for payment of amount with interest and penalty at the rate of 2%; but, without communicating the said order, they issued letter dated 13.10.2010 withdrawing the said order and allotting the plot to the fifth respondent.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the allotment was made to the fifth respondent by order dated 13.10.2010, even before receipt of order on 14.10.2010 by the petitioner, copy of allotment was received by the fifth respondent on 13.10.2010 itself. There is no justification on the part of the respondents for withdrawing the restoration of allotment of plot in letter dated 11.10.2010 within two days, that too, without communicating same to the petitioner.
The said action of the respondents is sought to be justified in their counter affidavit stating that the order dated 11.10.2010 was not directed to be communicated to the petitioner. The respondent has indicated no reason or basis for her assertion of right in not communicating the said order. The respondents stated that the petitioner was offered 90 days from 06.03.2010 for payment of cost of the plot of Rs.13,49,068/-, but she failed to remit the said amount within the stipulated time. It is stated that the petitioner never approached the respondents seeking extension of time for payment of cost of the plot and has not expressed any difficulty in payment of land cost in view of admitting her father in the hospital. But it is admitted that the petitioner paid the required amount of Rs.13,49,068/- vide letter dated 05.10.2010 towards the land cost and the said amount was forwarded to the Head Office by the Zonal Office through its letter dated 06.10.2010. The Head Office after examining the case, vide order dated 11.10.2010 condoned the delay. The said order was not communicated to the petitioner, however, the petitioner wants to take advantage of the internal correspondence ran between the Head Office and Zonal Office.
Various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition reveal that due to the health condition of her father, who unfortunately died after undergoing Open Heart Surgery, the petitioner did not remit the land cost within the stipulated period. She brought the facts to the notice of the respondents and thereafter she paid the requisite amount on 05.10.2010 and upon receipt of the said amount, the respondents reviewed the case of the petitioner and issued order dated 11.10.2010 withdrawing the orders of cancellation of allotment of plot. But surprisingly, the respondents through order dated 13.10.2010 allotted the plot in favour of the fifth respondent without communicating the order dated 11.10.2010 to the petitioner. Assuming that letter dated 11.10.2010 was rescinded by them, there is no explanation in their counter affidavit indicating valid reasons for them in allotting the plot to the fifth respondent within two days from that day. It is not known as to what has transpired in the Head Office between 11.10.2010 and 13.10.2010. Though the petitioner is not having any right for allotment, equitable considerations arise due to the explanation of the petitioner and acceptance of the same by the Head Office in the proceedings dated 11.10.2010 warranting interference of this Court. In the absence of any valid reasons for withdrawing the said order within two days, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ petition by directing respondents 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to pay the requisite amount as per the proceedings dated 11.10.2010 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the said amount, respondents 1 to 4 shall take necessary steps for executing the documents in favour of the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the allotment of plot made in favour of the fifth respondent through order dated 13.10.2010.
Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 5th November,2014. Msnro