THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25534 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is an Educational Society. With a view to establish Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training Institution, Orphanage and School for Deaf and Dumb, the petitioner approached the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, the 2nd respondent herein, to provide accommodation on lease basis. Certain buildings, constructed by the 2nd respondent, and not in use; were mentioned in the representation dated 28-08-2009. A building at Hill Colony, which was earlier allotted to the Forest Department; was also mentioned. On consideration of the application of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 05-11-2009, allotting the said building, at a rent of Rs.1,236/- per month. The allotment, that was existing in favour of the Forest Department, was cancelled, and the same was communicated to the Divisional Forest Officer, the 3rd respondent, through a letter, of the same date. The petitioner states that, consequent upon the allotment, it had occupied the building, and proposed to effect repairs. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is interfering with the works, and preventing the petitioner from effecting repairs. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Forest. Even from a perusal of the proceedings dated 05-11-2009, it is evident that the building in question was earlier allotted to the Forest Department. On the basis, that the building is not being used, the 2nd respondent straightaway cancelled the allotment, and re- allotted to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent was informed of this cancellation. Naturally, the 3rd respondent took serious exception to the manner in which the issue was dealt with, and addressed a letter dated 13-11-2009. Even if there existed any allotment in favour of a private individual, cancellation thereof ought to have preceded by a show cause notice, or at least, the basic correspondence. Further, the manner in which the possession of the building is taken from an earlier allottee, assumes significance. It cannot occur just with a stroke of pen. Either it should be with the consent of the parties, or by operation of the proceedings, that ensued in this regard. In his letter, dated 13-11-2009, the 3rd respondent has raised several issues before the 2nd respondent. Unless they are resolved, the petitioner cannot have effective control, or possession over the building. The 2nd respondent has to take necessary steps in this regard. In case, it becomes impossible for sustaining the allotment in favour of the petitioner, its case can be considered, as regards other premises, if any, and in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, a) the 2nd respondent shall take necessary steps on the letter dated 13-11-2009, addressed by the 3rd respondent, and pass final orders, as regards the rights of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today; and b) in case, the allotment in favour of the petitioner becomes untenable, its case shall be considered for allotment of other premises, if any, strictly following the prescribed procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-12-2009. KO