IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11343 of 2001 Between: V.Prabhulingam S/o V.Vasudev H.No.3-6-55, Ravindrangar, Hyd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P., Housing Board, rep by its MD & VC., Gruhakalpa Buildings, MJ Road, Hyd. 2 The Execuitve Engineer (Housing ), A.P., Housing Board, Mahabubnagar. .....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 issue an appropriate writ, more in the nature of mandamus, declaring the procd's Procd.No.134/MIG.II/MBNR/E3/2000/302 DT 29-2-2000 and also th consequential orders in Lr.No.134/MIG.II/MBNR/E3/2001 dt 19-3-2001 of the Executive Engineer (Housing ) AP Housing Board, Mahabubnagar as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional & violative of Prl of natural justice and consequential direction directing the respondets to give possession of House No.134 MIG-II, Mahabubnagar to the petitioner after collecting necessary amount Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.VARA PRASAD REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11343 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner was allotted MIG No.134 house in Yedira, Mahabubnagar. He paid an amount of Rs.60,900/- including Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) to the respondents. The second respondent addressed a letter dated 12.03.1999 asking the petitioner to execute hire purchase agreement and take possession under which payment of installments will commence from 01.04.1999. The petitioner raised objection with regard to construction as well as facilities provided to MIG house. The petitioner alleges that basic amenities were not provided to the house. He brought this to the notice of the respondents, in vain. On 29.02.2000 the allotment was cancelled. He, therefore, made a representation to restore allotment. By impugned communication dated 19.03.2001, the petitioner was informed that allotment is already cancelled and it was reallotted on ﬁrst come ﬁrst serve basis. Therefore, he ﬁled the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give possession of House No.134 MIG.II, Mahabubnagar. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by second respondent it is stated that in response to the notiﬁcation the petitioner applied along with EMD of Rs.1000/-, that the application was processed and he was allotted MIG No.134 on hire purchase basis. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.65,100/- during the period from August 1982 to May 1997. After completion of the construction, by letter dated 28.11.1998 the petitioner was informed about the same. He was asked to execute Lease – cum – Sale Agreement and take over possession of the house on or before 10.12.1998. The petitioner failed to execute the agreement. Therefore, as per Regulation 22(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Regulations, 1997 (hereafter called, Regulations), the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by proceedings dated 29.02.2000. In accordance with Regulation 28(iii) of the Regulations the house was reallotted to another applicant, who has taken possession of the house and enjoying it. One year thereafter, the petitioner made a representation for restoration of allotment, which was rejected on 19.03.2001. All other allegations made by the petitioner are denied. Though the counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled way back on 17.09.2002, no reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled denying the counter averments. Therefore, the case of the respondents is deemed to have been admitted. Secondly, after cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner in February 2000, the MIG house was reallotted to another applicant. He is not a party to this writ petition. In the absence of a necessary party, it is well settled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, which would aﬀect such party. The respondents have taken action in accordance with Regulations and the same cannot be faulted. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.09.2008 vs To 1 The MD., & VC., A.P., Housing Board, Gruhakalpa Buildings, M.J.Road, Hyd. 2 The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P., Housing Board, Mahabubnagar. 3 2CCs to 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA}