IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8075 of 2003 Between: Smt.C. Susheela Devi, W/o.Dr.C.P.Rao., R/o.Plot No.5A, Anand Sheel Estates, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep.by its Vice Chairman, 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in letter No.30466/11/98 MA, dated 4.9.2001 and the consequential rejection order in letter No. P/2003/HUDA/EMC/02 dated 21.12.2002 is illegal, to the extent of imposing the condition that the said proceedings shall not apply to the plot owners who have already paid full amount and interest and there shall be no refund, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the interest amount collected from the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed by the purchaser of the plot, which was sold by the second respondent - Urban Development Authority, questioning the part of the proceedings, dated 04-09-2001, issued in letter No.30408/11/98 MA, by the first respondent and consequently rejection orders, dated 21-12-2002, passed in letter No.P/2003/HUDAEMC/02 by the second respondent – Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. The second respondent is a Development Authority constituted under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Area Development Act, 1975. It has developed an extent of Acs.50.00 of land at Hakeempet village and another extent of Acs.47.50 of land at Shaikpet Village as residential plots and named them as HUDA Heights and HUDA Enclave, for which notification was issued in the month of January, 1997 for allotment of plots on Auction-cum-Tender basis. The auction was held on 30-01-1997. The petitioner was the highest bidder for plot No.70 with an area of 900 square meters, which was offered to purchase, at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per square meter, for total amount of Rs.32,49,000/-. As per the tender conditions, on payment of 1/4th of the sale consideration, the petitioner was issued confirmation- cum-provisional allotment letter, dated 25-02-1997. As per the confirmation-cum-provisional allotment letter, allottees were asked to pay 1/4th of the sale price towards initial deposit on the date of auction and the balance amount was payable within a period of two months with an option to pay within six months with an interest at 20% from the date of auction. A further condition was also imposed that in the event of non-payment of balance amount within a period of six months referred above, the allotments were liable to be cancelled by forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit. In the case on hand, the petitioner, who has purchased plot No.70 with an area of 900 square meters, has paid the 1/4th of the sale price on the date of auction and has paid balance amount within a period of six months along with interest as per the tender conditions. It is not in dispute that consequently a registered sale deed was executed on 04-11-1997 by the second respondent authority in favour of the petitioner. During the year 1998, there was a representation from the Convener of HUDA Heights and HUDA Enclave Plot Owners Welfare Association for waiving the interest, including penal interest, on the ground that infrastructure facilities, like drinking water, electricity, drainage and roads were not completed by the second respondent authority. Responding to such representation, the first respondent/Government issued directions to the second respondent to collect simple interest from the date of completion and providing amenities, such as electricity, roads and sewerage to the layouts from the plot owners, who have not fully paid so far, in six months and in three installments. In the said proceedings, it is made clear that the said directions are applicable to the plot owners, who have not paid full amount and interest and those who have already paid, they are not entitled for refund. In continuation of the same, on the representation by some legislators on 15-03-2002, the Government decided to collect simple interest at 13.5% on the balance bid amount from the April, 2000 onwards from those allottees, who have not paid the amount within time. After Government has passed orders, dated 04-09- 2001, issued in letter No.30408/11/98 MA and dated 16-04- 2002 issued in letter No.30408/11/98 MA, the petitioner filed representation dated 10-12-2002 for refund of interest, which has already paid, but the same is rejected by the second respondent Urban Development Authority by the impugned letter, dated 21-12-2002. As much as it is stated in the order passed by the Government that the directions issued in the said letter will apply to the plot owners, who have not paid full amount and interest, but not to the plot owners, who have paid full amount and interest and in view of the rejection orders issued by the second respondent, dated 21-12-2002, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition. It is submitted by Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that as much as the petitioner has purchased the land in the auction held by HUDA and respondents have not provided infrastructure to the said layout, the respondents are not entitled to collect any interest from the petitioner. It is submitted that in any event, while issuing directions, the first respondent ought not to have confined the directions only to plot owners, who have not paid full amount and interest. It is submitted that though there is waiver of interest, the same is not extended to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons in discriminatory manner. Counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the first and second respondents. While generally denying the allegations of the petitioner in the counter it is stated that when the tenders are notified, in the application form its terms and conditions are notified and as per the confirmation letter, the balance amount was payable within two months with an option to pay within a period of six months with interest at 20%. It is stated that having paid the amount and interest, the petitioner became not eligible to seek refund based on the orders issued by the Government. It is further stated that as orders issued by the Government are confined to those allottees, who have not paid the bid amount within the time and as much as petitioner having paid full consideration, as per the tender conditions, she is not entitled to seek directions for refund of the amount. The purchase of plot by the petitioner is on the basis of auction-cum-tender basis. Very auction is notified subject to certain conditions and it is not in dispute that there was condition for payment of 1/4th of the amount on the date of auction and balance amount was payable within a period of two months with an option to pay within six months with 20% interest. Though there are orders issued by the Government, dated 04-09-2001 and 16-04-2002 for relaxing the payment of interest for certain period, this Court is of the view that any relaxation with regard to payment of interest will run contrary to very conditions notified for sale. The petitioner being fully aware of the conditions of sale, having paid the amount, and after execution of the sale deed, she is not entitled to seek refund on the ground that for some of the plot owners, orders were issued for payment of interest only for some period, modifying the quantum of interest. The relief sought by the petitioner for refund of the amount with interest will run contrary to the very conditions, as such, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition for grant of directions as prayed for. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 16th July, 2009. skmr