THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT APPEAL No.20 of 2010 Dated:22.01.2010 Between: P.C.Subbarayudu. …Appellant and The Govt. of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary (Municipal Admn.), Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT APPEAL No.20 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appellant is a retired Municipal Assistant Engineer. While he was in service he was allotted a municipal quarter in 1979. When his request for allotment on hire purchase basis was not considered, he filed W.P.No.5677 of 1989. This Court allowed the writ petition on 09.04.1993 and directed the Commissioner of Ongole Municipality to consider the petitioner’s case for allotment of municipal quarters. When the same was not done he filed Contempt Case No.280 of 2003. The same was dismissed noticing the fact that the petitioner was allotted the house where he was living. He was, however, given liberty to seek necessary redressal regarding price fixation. He, therefore, filed W.P.No.10633 of 2004, contending that fixation of Rs.2,91,487/- is arbitrary and for a consequential direction to register quarter No.3 in his name. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by impugned order dated 04.11.2009. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and learned Standing Counsel for Ongole Municipality. The facts are not disputed. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 11.03.2002 allotting quarter No.3 to the appellant on hire purchase basis and directed the second respondent to take necessary action. In obedience thereto, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Hyderabad, fixed the sale price at Rs.2,91,487/-. Thereafter by proceedings dated 21.04.2003 the second respondent advised the Municipal Commissioner to collect the sale price together with arrears of rent, interest and other charges to enable the Government for transfer of ownership rights. The appellant is aggrieved by the price fixation on three grounds. First, when he has been in possession of quarter No.3 since 1979 price fixation based on the rates of 2003 is arbitrary. Secondly, the fixation of price is not in accordance with G.O.Ps.No.2017 dated 03.09.1958. Thirdly, he submits that the Government issued orders earlier allotting similar quarters to three persons at Rs.29,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.31,000/- and the same terms should be meted out to him. We have given consideration to these submissions and find no merit. Paragraph No.8 of G.O.Ps.No.2017 reads as under. The Government shall in consultation with the Local Body fix the sale price of the house and shall while doing so take into consideration the following items:- (a) Cost of land and development (Roads, open space, and laying of mains for water-supply, drainage and electricity, etc.). (b) Cost of construction. (c) Cost of internal fittings for water-supply, drainage and electricity. (d) Maintenance and other incidental charges. (e) Interest as fixed from time to time on the total cost of items (a), (b) and (c) calculated for a period of thirty years. We have seen the statement of price fixation prepared by the Commissioner of Municipality and approved by the Engineer-in-Chief of Public Health Department. The same is in accordance with the guidelines contained in G.O.Ps.No.2017, and therefore, the submission that the price fixation is not in accordance with the guidelines is misconceived. Further, the appellant has not placed any material with regard to the allotment of quarters to other three persons at lesser rate, and therefore, any comparison would not be proper. As per the Government Order the price fixation has to be made with reference to the year of allotment. Admittedly, the appellant was allotted the quarter by Government Order dated 11.03.2002, and therefore, any mandamus to respondents to fix the price with reference to 1979 rates would be contrary to the Government policy guidelines. The learned Single Judge considered all these aspects while dismissing the writ petition and we do not find any error therein. The Writ Appeal for the above reasons is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 22.01.2010 vs