IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 848 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 6026 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr. P.C.Rao H.No. 8-2-293/82/HH/12/2, Road No. 12(old), Road No.1 (new), Adjacent to MCH Lake Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, New Delhi. 2 Deputy Director of Estates, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Directorate of Estates, Government of India, New Delhi. 3 Directorate of Estates, Government of India, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 848 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No:6026 of 2000 on 06-08-2008. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in 1) not considering his request for payment of normal rate of license fee as against the demand for market rate of license fee, 2} issuing proceedings in Case No.DRC/51/DD/Lit/99/TS dated 3-2-2000, as in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971 and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and for consequential direction to 1) set aside the procedings of the 3rd respondent in case No.DRC/51/DD/Lit/99/TS, dated 3-2-2000 and to consider the representation of the petitioner for being permitted to make payment of normal rate of license fee as against the market rate of license fee. The learned single judge having observed that as the petitoner already vacated the bungalow, the question with regard to the payment of license fee for his use and occupation of the Bungalow for the relevant period has to be decided only by the CCA, disposed of the writ petition directing respondents 2 and 3 to refer the matter to CCA with regard to payment of licence fee by the petitioner for his use and ocupation of the bungalow from 01-01-1997 to 20-01- 1999 during his tenure in the post of the judge of international tribunal, so as to enable the CCA to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is also made it clear that till CCA takes appropriate decision, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the said amount. It is further made it clear that the petitioner shall file an application before respondents 2 and 3 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order impugned, so as to enable them to refer the matter to CCA for taking appropirate decision. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is prefered by the writ petitoner. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The fact that remains undisputed is that the petitioner is retired as Law Secretary, Government of India and he was allotted bungalow in question while was in service. Since the petitioner has already vacated the bungalow, the question as to whether the payment of licence fee for his use and occupation of the bungalow in question for the relevant period has to be decided by the CCA, as rightly observed by the learned single judge. Therefore, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, since the time that was granted to file an application before respondents 2 and 3 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the learned single Judge, has already expired, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file the application before the authorities concerned. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to grant time for a period of two (2) months from today, to the petitoner to file an application before respondents 2 and 3 so as to enable them to refer the matter to CCA for taking appropirate decision. It is further made clear that till the C.C.A takes appropriate decision, no coercive steps should be taken for recovery of the amount in question. Subject to the above observation, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. _____________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI ____________________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 21st July, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 848 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Dated 21st July, 2009.