THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.28297 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner’s house situated in South Mada Street, Tirumala was acquired by T.T.D. through private negotiation for construction of Vykuntam Q Complex at Tirumala. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation for allotment of a shop in lieu of the acquired land and having considered the same, the T.T.D. by proceedings dated 24.12.1988 informed the petitioner that it was decided for allotment of shop in shopping complex of Tirumala at the time of allotment. However as there was no further information from the respondents, the petitioner made a representation dated 8.11.1995 and in response to the same the impugned order dated 5.3.2010 came to be passed stating that the request of the petitioner for allotment of the shop was rejected since she failed to turn up in spite of the proceedings dated 24.12.1988. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 5.3.2010 the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent in which it is reiterated that in spite of the proceedings dated 24.12.1988 the petitioner did not turn up and therefore her request for allotment of the shop was rightly rejected. A perusal of the proceedings dated 24.12.1988 shows that except informing the petitioner that her request had been examined and it was decided to allot a shop in shopping complex at the time of allotment, she was not asked to attend the office of the respondent. It is also relevant to note that the impugned rejection order came to be passed fifteen years after the petitioner’s representation dated 8.11.1995. No other material could be placed before this Court by the respondent to show that the petitioner was required to attend the office of the respondent at any point of time before passing the rejection order dated 5.3.2010. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent was not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s request merely on the ground that the petitioner did not turn up at the office of the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order of rejection is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s request for allotment of shop in the shopping complex subject to the availability as of today. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 14.09.2011 PN/gbs