THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 10718, 13791, 13792, 13805, 14062 & 15203 of 2001; 10022 of 2005; 8860 and 22832 of 2006 Common order: Since in this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question the individual orders dated 04.09.1998 issued by respondent No.1, namely the Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, canceling their selection for allotment of MIG and HIG Plots in Kukatpally Phase XV and forfeiting the amounts paid by them in relation thereto, to the Board, as per the Rules, they are disposed of by this common order. A.P. Housing Board issued notification dated 30.03.1993 for allotment of Plots under Phase XV at Kukatpally on outright sale/hire purchase basis at 50%/30% of the cost. The tentative cost of MIG and HIG Plots was fixed at Rs.65,000/- and Rs.90,000/- respectively. Along with the applications, the applicants had to pay 10% of the cost of the plot by way of demand draft. However, the petitioners instead of taking individual demand drafts for 10% of the tentative cost of the plot, have taken demand drafts for amounts over and above 10% of the cost of the plot, covering payment of a group of applicants, and submitted their applications along with the said demand drafts, within the stipulated time. Respondent No.1, vide individual letters addressed to the petitioners informed them that they were selected for allotment of the Plots as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioners state that though they made payments subsequently as per the terms and conditions of the allotment of the Plots, but curiously respondent No.1 issued the impugned orders dated 04.09.1998 individually to all the petitioners canceling the allotment of Plots made in their favour and forfeiting the monies paid by them towards the cost of the Plots merely on the basis of the recommendations made by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the main basis for canceling the Plots allotted in favour of the petitioners is the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau, which found that the petitioners instead of enclosing individual D.Ds. covering 10% of the cost of the plot, have submitted D.Ds. for higher amounts, covering payment of group of applications, and such manner of payment, was said to have violated the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the A.P. Housing Board (Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the APHB Allotment Rules’), they had recommended for cancellation of the Plots allotted in favour of the petitioners. They submitted that since respondent No.1 has himself permitted to pay higher denomination D.Ds. covering payment of group of applications, he could not have passed the impugned orders, canceling the allotment of Plots, made in favour of the petitioners. They submitted that the petitioners were neither made party to the proceedings before the Anti Corruption Bureau nor were they furnished copy of the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau, and as such, the action of respondent No.1 in passing the impugned orders canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, on the basis of the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau, is illegal and arbitrary. They further submitted that no notice whatsoever was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioners before cancelling the allotment of Plots made in their favour, and the said orders having been passed by respondent No.1 in sheer violation of the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained. They submitted that respondent No.1 had not applied his mind to the facts of the case before passing the impugned orders, canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, and had blindly acted on the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau, and took action as recommended by them in their report. They submitted that in the departmental action initiated by the A.P. Housing Board, against two of its officials, namely Sri. T. Ramakrishna Reddy, Special Grade Steno-P.A. to the then Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner and Sri. T.S.V. Ratnam, Public Relations Officer, for the alleged irregularities said to have been committed by them in the matter of allotment of Plots, they were exonerated of the charge that they had accepted higher denomination D.Ds. covering payment of group of applications. They submitted that though they were inflicted with punishment of stoppage of two increments for some other proved charge, the fact remains, in appeal the said punishment was also set aside. They submitted that except two petitioners, namely Sri. L. Dora Reddy and Smt. V. Helen, who are brother-in-law of Sri. T. Ramakrishna Reddy and wife of Sri. T.S.V. Ratnam, respectively, no other petitioner in the writ petitions, is related to the said officials either directly or indirectly or to any other official working in A.P. Housing Board, and as such, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.1, canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, on the ground that they had submitted demand drafts of higher denominations, covering payment of a group of applications, cannot be sustained, and more so, when no loss was caused to the A.P. Housing Board, and further respondent No.1 had himself permitted their officials to receive the applications with higher denomination D.Ds. covering payment of group of applications. They submitted that since there were more number of plots available than the number of applicants who applied for allotment of Plots, the question of commission of any irregularity in the allotment of Plots by the officials of A.P. Housing Board, much less in favour of the petitioners, does not arise, and as such, the orders passed by respondent No.1 cancelling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary, and accordingly they prayed that the said order be set aside and the writ petitions be allowed. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.2, namely the Executive Engineer (Housing), filed counters in all the writ petitions. Reiterating the counter averments, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that since in the matter of allotment of Plots, irregularities were committed by the officials of A.P. Housing Board on a large scale, the Anti Corruption Bureau conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioners instead of submitting individual demand drafts covering 10% of the cost of the plot, have submitted higher denomination demand drafts, covering 10% of the cost of the plot of a group of applicants, and since such payment violated the provisions of Rule 6(1) of APHB Allotment Rules, the Anti Corruption Bureau recommended for cancellation of Plots allotted in favour of the petitioners, apart from directing initiation of departmental action against officials who committed irregularities in the matter of allotment of Plots, and accordingly, respondent No.1 had cancelled the Plots allotted in favour of the petitioners, and no exception can be taken thereto. He submitted that since the allotment of plots made in favour of the petitioners was the result of a large scale fraud, as was found by the Anti Corruption Bureau in its report, there is no necessity for respondent No.1 to issue notices to each and every individual, requiring them to answer as to why the allotment of Plots made in their favour should not be cancelled. He submitted that mere allotment of Plots in favour of the petitioners, does not confer any right or title to claim the plots, and respondents have every right to cancel the Plots if they were allotted in violation of the APHB Allotment Rules. Hence, he submitted that no interference is called for with the impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, and prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-A.P. Housing Board. Prima facie, a reading of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, is on the basis of the recommendations made by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Admittedly, before canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the recommendations of the Anti Corruption Bureau, respondent No.1 did not give any notice to the petitioners, calling upon them to explain as to why the Plots allotted to them should not be cancelled. Principles of natural justice demand that the authorities who exercise quasi-judicial powers, should issue notices to the parties whose rights are going to be affected by the orders which they may pass in the proceedings initiated before them. The quasi-judicial authorities are expected to act independently without being influenced from any quarter and without succumbing to the pressures from higher authorities, else it would amount to their not exercising the powers vested in them and surrendering the power vested in them to some other authority. In Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal, the appellant assailed the action of the Syndicate Bank in punishing him on the basis of the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission. The apex Court, having considered the said question, found fault with the action of the Syndicate Bank in imposing punishment on the appellant on the basis of the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission, and held that the authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, and they cannot act to the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government, and no third party like the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government could dictate the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how they should exercise their powers and what punishment they should impose on the delinquent officer. In the case on hand, as stated above, respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, did not apply his mind or judicial discretion to the facts and circumstances of the case, but had merely acted to the dictation of the Anti Corruption Bureau, in that he had taken action as recommended by the Anti Corruption Bureau in its report, and cancelled the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners, and no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioners before canceling the Plots allotted to them. Respondent No.1 being an independent authority, vested with statutory functions and duties, notwithstanding the contents in the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau, was expected to act in terms of the powers vested in him, and ought to have followed the principles of natural justice, and before issuing the impugned orders, canceling the allotment of Plots made in favour of the petitioners he should have issued notices to the petitioners calling upon them to furnish their reply, and after considering the reply of the petitioners, by applying his mind to the facts of the case, ought to have taken appropriate action, and more so when the petitioners were neither party to the proceedings before the Anti Corruption Bureau nor were they furnished copy of the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in support of his argument that when there is large scale fraud played, and widespread illegalities and irregularities committed no notice is required to be given to each and every individual who are going to be adversely affected by the action going to be taken, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Bihar S.E. Board v. Subhas Chandra, I am of the considered opinion that the said judgment will in no manner come to the rescue of the respondent No.1, for the facts of the said case are totally different. In the said case, the Government cancelled the examination because at a particular center large scale copying was alleged to have taken place, and in such circumstances, it held that there was no need to issue individual notices to the candidates. But in the instant case, the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau has not recommended cancellation of Plots of all the persons who were allotted the Plots, but recommended cancellation of only 22 allottees (petitioners). Since the Plots of only 22 persons were recommended for cancellation by the Anti Corruption Bureau, respondent No.1 before acting on the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau and canceling the Plots allotted in their favour, ought to have issued notices to them, and by not doing so, they have violated the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders, passed by respondent No.1, cancelling the Plots allotted in favour of the petitioners, cannot be sustained, and the same is liable to be set aside. Since the individual impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 are required to be set aside on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, I am not inclined to go into the merits of matter, whether by submission of higher denomination D.Ds. representing payment of multiple applicants by the petitioners any loss was caused to the respondents, whether such submission was not in accordance with the Rules, whether such submission by the petitioners and receipt by the officials had the sanction of the higher officials of the respondents, whether in such submission, there was any collusion between the petitioner and the officials of the respondents, and whether exoneration of the charges leveled against the officials, who had received the applications of the petitioners with higher denomination D.Ds. representing payment of multiple applicants, by the respondents and the Government, will have any extenuating effect on the allotments made in favour of the petitioners, disentitling respondent No.1 from canceling the Plots allotted in favour of the petitioners, for these are matters for respondent No.1 to consider. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned individual orders passed by respondent No.1 cancelling the allotment of Plats made in favour of the petitioners, are set aside. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from issuing individual notices to the petitioners and calling for their explanation and then taking appropriate action in accordance with law. If the respondents issue any notices, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their explanation raising all the grounds, which they sought to raise in the present writ petition and which this Court refused to consider, for the reasons recorded above. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 13th February, 2008. KSR