THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.15419 of 2001 BETWEEN: Y. Nageswara Rao …. PETITIONER And 1. The Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad 500 001, and others. …. RESPONDENT ORDER: 1. Applications were called by a public notification dated 26.05.1979 for allotment of houses under Higher Income Group at Guntur. The petitioner submitted an application in response to the said notification. After a lapse of one year the petitioner was served with a letter dated 25.07.1980. The petitioner was informed that the Housing Board adopted a resolution in its meeting held on 29.05.1980 to take up only sites and services scheme for Higher Income Group applicants and to allot developed plots to them. The petitioner was therefore asked to send his consent for developed plots within a month from the date of receipt of the said letter and in case he was not willing to take the developed plots, he was asked to apply for refund of the deposit. The petitioner conveyed his consent for allotment of plot through letter dated 30.09.1980. Strangely, the respondent giving a go by to its proposal dated 25.07.1980, issued a letter dated 7.09.1994 reverting back to the earlier situation and informed the petitioner that it was proposed to take up construction of HIG houses at Nallapadu, Guntur under Self Financing Housing Scheme. The petitioner was asked to convey his willingness within one month and called upon to pay additional EMD. In the same letter, the petitioner was given chance to opt for developed plots if he was still interested. The petitioner responded to the same and opted for plot and conveyed the same by letter dated 4.10.1994. After the matter rested there for more than five years, a letter, dated 8.05.2001 was served on the petitioner, this time directing the petitioner to apply for refund of the EMD on the ground that the Scheme for allotment of developed plots was dropped. The petitioner has challenged this action in this writ petition as arbitrary and illegal and seeks a direction to allot either a plot or house as per the proposal of the Housing Board. 2. The aforesaid events clearly disclose the vagaries of the respondents and deprivation of right of the petitioner for allotment of a plot/house in an arbitrary manner. The petitioner was made to apply for allotment of a house. Later on, on their own unilateral volition, the respondents wanted to allot a plot and asked the willingness of the petitioner. The petitioner gave his consent. The respondents took a somersault and wanted to allot a house/plot as per the option of the petitioner. The petitioner opted for plot. Thereafter, the respondents having directed the petitioner to exercise his choice and after the petitioner exercised his option as per the directions, ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for allotment of plot. Unfortunately, the respondents have chosen to give a go by to their own proposals. 3. The respondents seek to justify their action on the ground that though the petitioner had given his option for a plot as per the letter dated 7.09.1994, he did not pay the difference of 10% EMD and that there was no demand for plots as only some of the applicants responded for allotment of plots. 4. Both the grounds are untenable. The respondents did not call upon the petitioner to pay any additional EMD. The letter dated 7.09.1994 clearly discloses that those interested in allotment of houses were alone directed to pay the additional EMD and those who opted for flats were directed only to convey their willingness. Therefore, the objection with regard to the payment of additional EMD cannot be pressed against the petitioner. 5. It is not in dispute that even after the construction of houses, there are 14 vacant plots still available in the layout. If really the Scheme was meant for construction of houses only, there is absolutely no reason to keep so many plots vacant. There is no valid reason why the case of the petitioner should not be considered for allotment of one plot. The respondents state that those vacant plots are now proposed for construction of five residential flats and the rest for constructing a commercial complex. Admittedly, no construction has been made so far and that it is still at the proposal stage. The petitioner has been seeking the allotment of plot absolutely according to the directions of the respondents. Therefore there is no justification for the respondents to deprive the petitioner of allotment of a plot after taking his consent from time to time. The petitioner having responded to the notification and who has been directed to exercise his option from time to time, thereby acquiring vested interest in the matter, cannot be deprived of the allotment. As noticed, there are still vacant plots, which are meant for construction of residential flats. The respondents have no justification in denying a plot to the petitioner. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondent is set aside. The respondent shall positively consider allotment of a plot to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 12th September, 2012. Js.