IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 4580 of 2005 Between: Dr. M. Kantha Rao S/o. Uma Maheswara Rao Vigilance & Enforcement, Vijayawada City. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. bys its Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Estate Officer, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, At Kairatabad, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No. 26309/Accommodation.B1/2005-1 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional and pass such other or further orders as may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.N.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The petitioner challenges the Memo bearing reference No.26309/Accom.B1/2005/1 dated 02-03-2005 issued by the first respondent intimating that petitioner’s request for retention of Flat No. BH-2/5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad cannot be considered and that he should have to make a fresh request for allotment of a Government Quarter. The petitioner was allotted a Flat constituting a government accommodation in June, 2000 in view of the fact that he was then serving as the Additional Superintendent of Police, General Administration (V & E) Department, Hyderabad. While so, the petitioner requested for transfer as Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Vijayawada and was transferred in view of his request, by the proceedings dated 30-06-2004. Since the petitioner ceased to be employed at Hyderabad, he was required to vacate the premises and since he did not, eviction proceedings were initiated under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). It would appear that the petitioner was permitted to retain the flat in question for a period of two months after his transfer viz., up to 31-08-2004 vide first respondent’s memo dated 28-07-2004. Even after the aforesaid time granted, the petitioner continued to occupy the premises in contravention of the “Allotment of Government Quarters Rules, 1973” and therefore a show cause notice was issued under the provisions of the Act on 07-10-2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he retained the public premises beyond his entitlement. The petitioner sought adjournment for responding to the above notice. Meanwhile, the premises in question was allotted by the first respondent to one Sri N. Hanumantha Rao, IPS, DIG, Hyderabad, who was in dire need of accommodation. The petitioner continued to hold on to the premises even beyond his entitlement. When he was to be evicted forcibly by following the due process of law, he has filed the writ petition and obtained an interim order, initially on 09-03- 2005 interdicting the lawful process of eviction. In paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government (Accommodation), General Administration Department, Hyderabad, it is stated that the Executive Engineer (R & B), Central buildings Division, Hyderabad, who is the custodian and Maintaining Authority of the public premises informed that on 23-02-2005 onwards police constables belonging to Banjara Hills Police Station were constantly coming to the Section Office (R & B), Banjara Hills in his absence and threatening the officials that there is a complaint against the Section Officer and the Estate Officer for locking and sealing the public premises in question. It is rather distressing to note that there is a near state of anarchic aggression between the Police Establishment and General Administration Department with regard to the occupation of a public premises by a public servant – the petitioner, beyond his entitlement under law. If the Banjara Hills Police are threatening the officials of the R & B Department or the General Administration (Accommodation) Department for performing their lawful obligations in seeking to evict the petitioner, then it is a serious matter for the Chief Secretary to rein in renegade police officials before administration regresses to total anarchy. Coming to the case on merits, the petitioner is seen to have no legal entitlement whatsoever to continue in the premises in question after his transfer to Vijayawada in June, 2004. According to the Government Memo he was entitled to continue in the premises for a period of two months after the date of his transfer. He is not entitled to continue in the premises beyond 31-08-2004. He has done so under the colour of the interim orders issued by this Court. It is now seen that the petitioner is not so entitled. If the petitioner has now been transferred to Hyderabad, as contended, then the petitioner should make an independent application for accommodation and must await consideration of such application in accordance with law. He cannot have a permanent lien on the government accommodation irrespective of his place of posting. On the aforesaid analysis there are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated:24-03-2008 Pvks/*