THE HOH’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WA No.2038 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 12-7-2005 passed in WP No.11542 of 2005 by the learned single Judge of this Court. The respondent herein filed the writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the appellants herein proposing to recover a sum of Rs.56,536/- from him on the ground that he was in occupation of the quarter without proper authority. 2. The facts stated are that the petitioner-respondent herein while working as Junior Accounts Officer was transferred from Andhra Circle to Gujarat Circle in February, 2003. At that time, on an application made by the petitioner-respondent herein for retention of the quarter, by proceedings dated 28-7-2003, he was allowed to continue for a period of two years i.e. from 21-2-2003 to 20-2-2005. However, he was re- transferred to Andhra Circle in September, 2003 before completion of the tenure of two years and joined at Nizamabad on 15-9-2003. After joining at Nizamabad, he submitted an application on 9-10-2003 for retention of the quarter as he could not shift his family from Hyderabad to Nizamabad due to his mother’s ill-health. According to the petitioner, the appellants-officers did not pass orders, but issued a notice on 30-10- 2004 directing him to vacate the quarter. Accordingly, the petitioner vacated the quarter on 15-11-2004 Thereafter, the appellants herein issued the impugned proceedings calculating the rent payable at normal rate from 15-9-2003 to 14-11-2003, thereafter for a period of six months i.e. from 15-11-2003 to 14-5-2004 at double the normal rate and for the remaining period i.e. from 15-5-2004 to 22-11-2004 at penal rate of Rs.150/- per square metre and arrived at a sum of Rs.56,536/- including water charges at Rs.50/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 3. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order modified the order passed by the authorities directing them to collect rent from the petitioner-respondent herein at the rate of double the normal rent for the entire period already covered and till the petitioner vacated the premises in question. Hence, this writ appeal by the authorities. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner-respondent herein was originally allotted a quarter by the appellants and in fact he was permitted to retain the same for a period of two years when he was transferred to Gujarat circle. As soon as the petitioner was asked to vacate the quarter by 30- 10-2004, he vacated the same within two weeks i.e. by 15-11-2004. If the petitioner was not entitled to continue in occupation of the quarter, nothing prevented the appellants herein to take action. As observed by the learned single Judge, it is not the case of the appellants that even after issuance of notice, the petitioner continued in occupation of the residential quarter. Under those circumstances, there was no justification in levying the rent at abnormal rate. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ Sanjay Kumar, J Dated: 14-9-2011 Nrg.