IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19064 of 2005 Between: V.Ramesh, S/o.Narayana, R/o.H.No.6-16-121, Ambedkar Colony, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Housing Board , rep by its Managing- Director, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (Housing), A.P.Housing Board, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the impugned Notiﬁcation No.523/EE- NZB/EC1/Auction/2005 dt.18-8-2005 proposing to conduct auction of the premises of the petitioner bearing H.No.112, Kanteshwar Phase-I, Nizamabad, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:K.ARUNA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19064 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner assails the auction notiﬁcation dated 18.08.2005 issued by Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) proposing to conduct auction sale of MIG house No.112, Kanteshwar Phase-I, Nizamabad, belonging to him. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notiﬁcation inviting applications for allotment of houses on hire purchase basis, the petitioner applied and by allotment order dated 30.05.2002, house No.112 was allotted to him. He paid two installments (25% of the cost). Subsequently he was asked to pay total sale consideration by obtaining loan from bank under Self Financing Scheme (SFS). He gave willingness for the same. When the bank refused loan to him, he did not pay the amount. He allegedly made representation on 24.11.2004 requesting APHB to permit him to withdraw willingness for SFS and again revert to hire purchase scheme. Allegedly even while representation was pending impugned auction notiﬁcation was issued. The petitioner mainly contends that without cancelling the allotment made in his favour, auction proposed is illegal and arbitrary. Second respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit. While admitting the fact of the matter to the stage of the petitioner expressing his willingness to SFS scheme, it is denied that the petitioner made any representation. They further stated that in spite of addressing letters requesting the petitioner to pay the balance tentative cost of the house allotted, he did not pay. Therefore, notice dated 02.07.2004 was issued stating that he failed to pay the balance and as there was no response, ﬁnal notice was issued on 25.08.2004 before cancelling the allotment by proceedings dated 22.07.2005. Thereafter as required under Regulation 28(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of HIG, MIG, LIG, and EWS Houses or Flats) Regulations, 1997 (1997 Regulation, for brevity), impugned auction notiﬁcation is issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner did not receive cancellation order and therefore, impugned auction notiﬁcation is arbitrary and illegal. This is refuted by learned standing counsel for APHB. APHB ﬁled counter aﬃdavit on 10.11.2005, however, so far no reply-aﬃdavit is ﬁled. In the absence of any speciﬁc denial by the petitioner, it shall be deemed that the counter averments are admitted. Thus there are strong reasons to draw an inference that APHB cancelled allotment after following due process of law. Secondly even according to the petitioner when his request to ICICI bank to sanction loan for payment under SFS scheme was refused, he addressed letter to APHB withdrawing his willingness for SFS scheme. When once willingness is granted as rightly submitted by learned standing counsel, it is irrevocable. The petitioner cannot again go back on his willingness. In this view of the matter, this Court does not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the auction. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge cancellation order dated 22.07.2005. This Court is not inclined to grant such liberty for two reasons. First, even though the petitioner ﬁled the writ petition on 29.08.2005 challenging impugned auction notiﬁcation, he did not even make enquiries before ﬁling the writ petition as to whether allotment made in his favour was still valid or not. Secondly as seen from the counter-aﬃdavit, APHB put number of plots of APHB colony, Kanteshwar, to auction. Plot No.112, which was originally allotted to the petitioner, could not be auctioned only because there was observation made by this Court that auction shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. If again this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to challenge the cancellation order, it amounts to directing APHB to act contrary to Regulation 28(iii) of 1997 Regulations. A writ of Mandamus which has eﬀect of compelling an authority to act illegally cannot be granted. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25th September, 2008 GHN To 1 Andhra Pradesh Housing Board , rep by its Managing- Director, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (Housing), A.P.Housing Board, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRR}