THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 20757 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioner is an Assistant Section Officer in the General Administration Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. She states that she is entitled to allotment of “A” type quarter, and accordingly she made a request to respondent No.1, namely the Government, to allot “A” type quarter, but the Government, vide orders issued in Memo dated 28.01.2004, have allotted her “B” type quarter, bearing No. B-101, Government Quarters, Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, and she having taken possession thereof, is presently residing therein. While so, she states that she again made a representation to the Government for allotment of “A” type quarter, and the Government, having considered her representation and eligibility, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 946, General Administration (Accom.) Department, dated 20.12.2007, allotting her “A” type quarter bearing No. A-17, Government Quarters, Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, on exchange basis. The petitioner states that she was required to occupy the said quarter within eight days, but she could not do so because the incumbent, namely Sri. T. Satyanarayana, who is in occupation of the quarter, did not vacate same, even though he retired from service on 31.07.2008. The petitioner states that respondent No.2, who was in occupation of “C” type quarter, submitted application for allotment of “A” type quarter, but the Government vide orders issued in Memo dated 18.07.2008, informed her that she is not eligible for allotment of “A” type quarter. Thereafter, vide orders issued in Memo dated 06.08.2008, the Government informed respondent No.2 that Quarter No. A-18 was already allotted to some other officer, and therefore, she may choose any other vacant quarters. However, contrary to the said orders, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 586, General Administration (Accom.B) Department, dated 12.09.2008, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No. 2. On the very same day, the Government having considered the representation of the incumbent, namely Sri. T. Satyanarayana, for extension of time, issued orders in Memo dated 12.09.2008, permitting him to retain the quarter for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.08.2008 on payment of rents regularly. The said Sri. T. Satyanarayana, continued in the said quarter till 24.09.2008, and he vacated the same on his wife being allotted Quarter No. C-30 in the same colony. Thereafter, the Government issued orders in Memo dated 27.09.2008, requesting the Estate Officer, Hyderabad, to keep in abeyance of giving and taking possession of Quarter No. A-17. However, a day before issuance of the said Memo, the petitioner states that respondent No.2 on the basis of the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 586, General Administration (Accom.B) Department, dated 12.09.2008, occupied Quarter No. A-17, which in fact, was allotted to her by the Government vide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, General Administration (Accom.) Department, dated 20.12.2007. Hence, questioning the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 586, General Administration (Accom.B) Department, dated 12.09.2008, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No.2 by canceling the allotment of the said quarter made in her favour earlier vide G.O. Ms. No. 946, General Administration (Accom.) Department, dated 20.12.2007, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the said G.O. as illegal and arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and, consequently to set aside the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Quarter No. A-17 at Patigadda Colony, was in fact, allotted to the petitioner by the Government vide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, on exchange basis, and as the incumbent did not vacate the quarter, as is evident from the orders issued by the Government in the Memo dated 12.09.2008, which permitted the incumbent to retain the quarter for three months, the petitioner could not occupy the quarter, and therefore, the Government could not have, at the instance of respondent No.2, issued the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, canceling the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, and allotting Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No.2, and more so without issuing any notice and in sheer violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, he submitted that the impugned G.O. issued by the Government be declared as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the same and allow the writ petition. On behalf of respondent No.1, their Principal Secretary in the GAD Department, has filed detailed counter. The learned Government Pleader for GAD, reiterating the counter averments submitted that though the petitioner was allotted Quarter No. A-17 as far back as on 20.12.2007, she has failed to occupy the same. The petitioner is not eligible for allotment of “A” type Quarter, but having regard to the provisions of Rule 13(4) of the Allotment of Government Quarters Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), the same was allotted to her on humanitarian grounds on exchange basis. He admitted that the request of respondent No.2 for allotment of “A” type quarter was earlier rejected by the Government, but the Hon’ble Chief Minister, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 20 of the Rules, directed allotment of Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No. 2 on exchange basis. He submitted that since the petitioner has not occupied the quarter, no right accrued to her, and as such, no notice need be issued to her before canceling the allotment made in her favour. He however, submitted that some “A” type quarters are vacant, and if the petitioner submits application, her case would be considered for allotment of any of the said vacant quarters. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Government having considered the request of respondent No.2, particularly in the light of the fact that her mother is an old aged lady suffering from diabetes and blood pressure, has in exercise of power conferred under Rule 20 of the Rules, allotted Quarter No. A-17 to her, and no fault can be found with such action of respondent No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for GAD for respondent No.1-Government and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Admittedly, on the request made by the petitioner for allotment of quarter, the Government having considered her eligibility, had issued orders in Memo dated 28.01.2004, allotting Quarter No. B-101 at Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, to her, wherein she is presently residing. Thereafter, the Government having considered another representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2007, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting Quarter No. A- 17 to the petitioner on exchange basis and on vacation of the said quarter by the incumbent, namely Sri. T. Satyanarayana, who was in occupation of the said quarter. Even though Sri. T. Suryanarayana, retired from service on 31.07.2008, the fact remains, he did not vacate the Quarter immediately, facilitating the petitioner to occupy the said quarter. However, the incumbent made a representation to the Government on 26.08.2008, seeking extension of time by three months, to vacate the quarter. The Government acceding to such request of the incumbent, vide orders issued in Memo dated 12.09.2008, permitted him to retain the quarter for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.08.2008. The said order reads as follows: The attention of Sti. T. Satyanarayana, Asst. Secretary (Retd) is invited to the reference cited. 2. Government have examined the request of Sri. T. Satyanarayana, Asst. Secretary (Retd) and permit him to retain the Govt Quarter No. A-17, Patigadda Colony for a period of three (3) months in total w.e.f. 1.8.2008 by paying the rent as per G.O. Ms. No. 123, G.A. (Accom.B) Dept., dated 3.3.2008. He is requested to vacate the Govt. Quarter after the permissible period duly clearing the Electricity and Water Bills. 3. The Estate Officer, Hyderabad, is requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly. From the above, it is clear that the incumbent did not vacate the Quarter till 12.09.2008, even though he retired from service on 31.08.2008, and according to the admitted stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter, the incumbent had vacated the quarter only on 24.09.2008 upon his wife being allotted a “C” type quarter. Therefore, obviously the petitioner could not occupy Quarter No. A-17 allotted to her, even though she was allotted the Quarter as far back as on 20.12.2007. Long after allotment of Quarter No. A-17 to the petitioner, it appears that respondent No.2, who is in occupation of “C” type quarter at Patigadda Colony, made representation dated 08.07.2008 requesting the Government to allot Quarter No. A-18, on the ground that she is facing insufficient space problem because of large size of her family, and the Government having considered the said representation, vide orders issued in Memo dated 18.07.2008, rejected the said request of respondent No.2, stating as follows: The attention of Smt. K. Hemalatha is invited to the reference cited and she is informed that she is not eligible for “A” type quarters in Patigadda Colony. Hence her request is not feasible. On the very same day, it appears that respondent No.2 represented to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to allot Quarter No. A-18 to her. Thereafter, based on the note file dated 24.07.2008, which ensued from the Principal Secretary to CM, the Government issued orders in another Memo dated 06.08.2008, informing respondent No.2 as follows: The attention of Smt. K. Hemalatha, A.S.O., G.A. (SC-E) Dept. is invited to the reference 1st and 2nd cited above, and she is informed that the Qtr. No. A-18 at Patigadda Colony, is already allotted to some other officer as per earlier written commitment. Therefore, she is requeted to choose any other vacant Quarter bearing Nos. A-2, A-3, A-12, A-15 and A-16 in Patigadda Colony, for allotment. From the above, it is clear that respondent No.2 had requested for allotment of Quarter No. A-18, and though by Memo dated 18.07.2008 she was informed that she is not eligible for allotment of “A” type quarter, the fact remains, that pursuant to the orders received from the Principal Secretary to CM, respondent No.1 by a subsequent Memo dated 06.08.2008, informed respondent No.2 that Quarter No. A-18 is not vacant and as such, requested her to choose any of the vacant quarters, namely Quarter bearing Nos. A-2, A-3, A-12, A-15 and A-16 in Patigadda Colony that were said to be vacant. Despite issuance of orders, as indicted in the above Memos, the Government for the reasons best known to them, have issued G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No.2, and canceling the earlier orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, whereunder the petitioner was allotted Quarter No. A-17. Though respondent No.1, seeks to justify the cancellation of Quarter No. A-17 allotted to the petitioner vide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, taking shelter on the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules, the fact remains, the said Rule obligates the allotting authority, to record reasons in writing, in the event of his relaxing all or any of the provisions of the Rules. Neither the note dated 24.07.2008, which emanated from the desk of the Principal Secretary to CM nor the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, issued by the Government, canceling the earlier orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting Quarter No. A-17 in favour of the petitioner, and allotting the same again to respondent No.2, records any reasons. The note, which emanated from the desk of the Principal Secretary to CM, in fact, states that the Hon’ble Chief Minister has agreed for allotment of Quarter No. A-18, Patigadda Colony to Mrs. K. Hemalatha in relaxation of the Rules, and necessary orders may please be issued. The said note only states that the Hon’ble Chief Minister had agreed for allotment of Quarter No. A-18 to respondent No.2, but it nowhere states that respondent No.2 should be allotted Quarter No. A-17, much less by canceling the earlier orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting the said quarter to the petitioner. It appears that merely basing on the representation of respondent No.2, the impugned G.O. was issued. The impugned G.O. leave alone recording any reasons, does not even refer to the note that emanated from the desk of the Principal Secretary to CM. The ground on which respondent No.2 sought allotment of “A” type quarter is that she is having large sized family, and in fact, this reason is not even reflected in the impugned G.O. On the other hand, the ground on which the petitioner sought allotment of “A” type quarter is that her mother-in-law underwent hip joint surgery and that she is taking treatment at Yashoda Hospital. Be that as it may, in the allotment of quarters, particularly in exercise of discretionary powers, and in relaxation of the Rules of allotment, the interests of justice demand that allotments should be based on sound and plausible reasons, justifying the relaxation of the Rules, and allotments cannot be made on the basis of the requests of the type made by respondent No.2, especially large size of her family. Allotment of quarters on the basis of size of the family of the employee can never be the criteria for allotment. Allotment of big, medium and small size quarters, should be based on the post one holds in the administrative hierarchy and the salary he draws. The higher the post, the bigger the size of the quarter he is entitled to, and lower the post, the smaller the size of the quarter he is entitled to, and this difference is created with a view to ensure that the high ranking officer occupies a quarter, befitting his status in the society. It may be that a high ranking officer in the hierarchy drawing a higher pay has a small family, and a lower ranking employee drawing a lesser pay has a big family, but that does not mean, that the high ranking officer who has a small family should be allotted small quarter and a lower ranking employee, who has a large family, should be allotted a big quarter. If the ground on which the government had allotted Quarter No. A-17 to respondent No. 2 is to be accepted, then a high ranking employee will end up paying huge rent for a small quarter, and a low ranking employee will pay less rent for a big quarter, which certainly would not be in the fitness of things and would offend the equality clause. Thus, it is clear that the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, issued by the government, canceling the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, allotting Quarter No. A-17 to the petitioner and allotting the same again to respondent No. 2, is without any reason and basis, much less in tune with Rule 20 of the Rules, which obligates recording of reasons by the allotting authority, in the event the quarter is to be allotted by relaxing the Rules of allotment. Respondent No.1 having informed respondent No.2 vide Memo dated 06.08.2008, that Quarter No. A-18 has already been allotted to some other officer, and he having further informed respondent No.2 to choose any other vacant quarter bearing Nos. A-2, A-3, A-12, A-15 and A-16 in Patigadda Colony, I fail to understand how he could have issued the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, canceling the allotment of Quarter No. A- 17 made earlier in favour of the petitioner under G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, and allotting the same to respondent No. 2. It is the contention of respondent No.1 that since the petitioner has not occupied the quarter, the same was cancelled. This stand taken by respondent No.1 is shocking. According to the own admission of respondent No.1 in the counter, the incumbent of Quarter No. A-17, had vacated Quarter No. A-17 same on 24.09.2008, though he retired from service on 31.7.2008. The government having themselves vide Memo dated 12.09.2008, permitted the incumbent to retain the quarter for a period of three months, and the incumbent having vacated the said quarter on 24.09.2008, much after issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, canceling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007, I fail to understand how respondent No.1 can take a stand in the counter that since the petitioner did not occupy the quarter even though the same was allotted to her as far back as on 20.12.2007, the allotment was cancelled. This stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter, is absolutely absurd, and does not stand to reason, and in fact, runs contrary to the orders issued by the Government in Memo dated 12.09.2008 permitting the incumbent to retain the quarter for a period of three months. The stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of “A” type quarter, also does not stand to reason, because it is not their case that by canceling the allotment made in favour of an ineligible person, they wanted to allot the same to an eligible person, and on the other hand, they sought to, and in fact, have allotted the quarter to respondent No.2, who it is said, is ineligible to be allotted “A” type quarter and is eligible to be allotted only “C” type quarter, which quarter, in fact, she was allotted and was also residing therein. The petitioner, admittedly, was allotted Quarter No. A-17, by the Government as far back as on 20.12.2007, by issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 946, and the petitioner having acquired a right to occupy Quarter No. A-17 on the basis of the said G.O., respondent No.1 before canceling the said allotment, ought to have issued notice to the petitioner, and since the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008, admittedly, has been issued without notice to the petitioner, the same obviously suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice, and cannot be sustained. The manner in which respondent No.1 issued the impugned G.O., taking a diametrically opposite view to the earlier stands taken by him, would clearly go to show that he has issued the same not only in violation of the note that emanated from the desk of the Principal Secretary to CM, but also his own orders issued earlier and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent No.1, being an officer, vested with the power to protect the interests of the general public, cannot act arbitrarily and pass orders favouring persons of his choice, much less by violating his own orders issued earlier and without assigning or recording any reasons, allegedly in the guise of exercising discretionary powers, which powers, the law is well settled, are to be exercised judiciously and supported by plausible and explicable reasons. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 12.09.2008 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to vacate Quarter No. A-17 at Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, and hand over the same to the Estates Officer, Hyderabad, forthwith. Thereupon, the Estates Officer, shall permit the petitioner to occupy Quarter No. A17, Patigadda Colony, on the strength of G.O. Ms. No. 946, dated 20.12.2007immediately. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 30th December, 2008. KSR