IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 22797 OF 2008 Between: M.Mohan Reddy …PETITIONER AND A.P.Housing Board, Gruha Kalpa Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 22797 OF 2008 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent-board in allotment of LIG Home at Kukatpally in favour of the petitioner herein and also considering the representations, dated 31.01.2008 and 12.09.2008 made by the petitioner to the respondent- board, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondent board to consider the representations and thereby allot LIG house at Kukatpally, Hyderabad to the petitioner. 2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: In pursuance of a scheme of A.P.Housing Board for allotment of Lower Income Group (LIG) house in Kukatpally area of Hyderabad, the petitioner had applied for allotment of LIG Home in the year 1981. As per the notification, the petitioner submitted an application along with demand draft for Rs.200/- and thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent-board for allotment of the house, but there was no response from the respondent. In the year 2008, the petitioner made representations to the respondent-board to allot the house, but there was no response. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Even according to the petition averments, the petitioner had applied for LIG house in Kukatpally area in the year 1981. It is imperative, if the petitioner wants to invoke extraordinary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. For about 30 years, the petitioner had slept over the matter and he was not pursuing the matter with the respondent-board. In the year 2008, he made representations to the respondent-Board on 31.01.2008 and on 12.09.2008. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J OCTOBER 28, 2011 YVL