IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18532 of 2000 Between: P.S.N.Murthy, E.86083 ADC., S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, Gajuwaka Depot, R/o.Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Gajuwaka Depot, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Dy.Chief Personal Manager, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Secretary, SRBS, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue and order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein in enhancing the recovery of HBA (House Building Advance) from Rs.777/- to Rs.2520/- and effecting recovery my salary without there being any prior notice to me and recovering my entire salary is illegal, unjust and arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice, and violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, and as such liable to be set aside and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Order: The petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in enhancing the installment amount for recovery of House Building Advance from Rs.777/- to Rs.2,520/- per month as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Depot Clerk in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, had applied for Special House Building Advance of Rs.50,000/- from the Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme, to purchase a house-site, by submitting necessary documents to the Regional Manager, Vizianagaram. The Regional Manager has granted approval for an amount of Rs.47,500/- for purchase of site. Thereafter, a memorandum dated 10-05-1994 was issued to the petitioner to submit necessary documents for release of first installment amount of the loan. On submission of necessary documents, an amount of Rs.42,500/- was released on 07-06-1994 and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 26-10-1994. 3. Alleging that the petitioner had failed to submit registered sale deed showing the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.47,500/-, as per the memorandum dated 10-05-1994, and has obtained sale deed showing the consideration amount only as Rs.16,000/-, the matter was referred to the third respondent. On such reference, the third respondent passed orders charging penal interest apart from enhancing the installment amount from Rs.777/- to Rs.2,520/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 4. While admitting the writ petition, this court, by order dated 28-09-2000, directed the respondents to recover only a sum of Rs.777/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. In view of the said deduction, the entire amount must have been recovered by this time. But, however, even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation, there is no mention of giving any opportunity to the petitioner before imposing penal interest or enhancing the installment from Rs.777/- to Rs.2,520/-. Even if the allegation made against the petitioner is true, respondents could not have unilaterally enhanced the installment amount by charging penal interest. In the counter affidavit, there is no indication of conducting any summary enquiry before taking such decision. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondents in enhancing the monthly installment amount and charging penal interest is illegal. 5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of declaring the action of the respondents in enhancing the installment amount and also charging penal interest on the loan obtained by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. However, it is made clear that if the loan amount, as per the initial agreed terms, is not recovered, it is open to the respondents to recover the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan. Further, it is also made clear that if any penal charges are recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice R. Subhash Reddy. November 6, 2008 Usd/MRR