IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5184 of 2005 Between: K. Rameswari Devi D/o K. kameshwara Rao r/o H. No. 72/5, MIG 3rd Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Housing Board rep by Vice-Chairman, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Executive Engineer (HG) West Division, A.P. Housing Board, 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 by declaring the action of the respondents in issuing demand notice dated 25-02- 2005 in Memo No. MIG/5B/WD/AEO(W)/04 and demanding to pay exorbitant amount without any basis and reason and illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to re-ﬁx the amount and to issue the detailed statement of account by giving suﬃcient time i.e. in terms of the agreement entered and to pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.J.PRABHAKAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5184 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner was allotted Flat No.72/5 in Phase-III of A.P. Housing Board at Kukatpally, in 1988. The possession of the ﬂat was handed over to her on 08.09.1988. In addition to the allotment money, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) tentatively ﬁxed the cost of the ﬂat at Rs.56,000/- and also gave a schedule for payment of instalments. As per the said schedule, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.31,459/- by way of instalments from 07.02.1990 to 11.02.1999. When the ﬁnal cost was not ﬁxed even after a decade, the association ﬁled W.P.No.5049 of 1989. The same was disposed of on 31.01.1997 directing APHB to take expeditious steps for ﬁxation of ﬁnal cost. Pursuant thereto, the respondents by a communication, dated 11.10.2001, informed the petitioner that the ﬁnal cost is Rs.62,243/-. Again on 25.02.2005, the Housing Board issued a demand notice informing her to pay Rs.72,221/- towards arrears of instalments based on the ﬁnal cost. The petitioner contends that ﬁxation of ﬁnal cost after a lapse of ten years is violative of Regulation 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Middle Income Group Houses) Regulations, 1975 (for short “the Regulations”). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled admitting the petitioner’s case except the allegation regarding the enforceability of Regulation 23 of the Regulations. It is further stated that the ﬁnal cost of MIG ﬂats could not be ﬁxed due to pendency of land acquisition cases and also arbitration cases with the contractors. Learned Standing Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in M.V.B.Sarma v. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board[1], wherein it was laid down thus. It is true, sub-clause (3) of Regulation 23 says that ﬁnal ﬁxation of sale price should be done within two years from the date of allotment of the house. But at the same time, it also provides for extension of period by the government in case where the ﬁnal cost cannot be ﬁxed within the prescribed period because the matters relating to land compensation for payment and the ﬁnal bills to the Contractors are pending in the Court. The power is given to the Government to extend the period for ﬁnal ﬁxation of sale price. In my considered opinion, the prescribed period of two years is not mandatory. Sub-clause (3) of Regulation 23 cannot be held to be mandatory one. It does not prescribe any consequences, if the ﬁnal ﬁxation of sale price is not done within two years from the date of allotment of the houses. On the other hand, the very fat that the provision is made for extension of the period by the Government would make it clear that the provision is not a mandatory one. I n Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.,[2], the Supreme Court considered the question, when the statute prescribes time limit/time schedule for doing certain thing, whether such provision can be interpreted as mandatory. Answering the question in the negative, it was laid down as under. We are not oblivious of the law that when a public functionary is required to do a certain thing within a speciﬁed time, the same is ordinarily directory but it is equally well settled that when consequence for inaction on the part of the statutory authorities within such speciﬁed time is expressly provided, it must be held to be imperative. In Sutherland’s Statutory Construction, 3rd Edn., Vol.3, at p.102 the law is stated as follows: “…..unless the nature of the act to be performed, or the phraseology of the statute is such that the designation of time must be considered a limitation of the power of the officer.” At p.107 it is pointed out that a statutory direction to private individuals should generally be considered as mandatory and that the rule is just the opposite to that which obtains with respect to public officers. Again, at p.109, it is pointed out that often the question as to whether a mandatory or directory construction should be given to a statutory provision may be determined by an expression in the statute itself of the result that shall follow non-compliance with the provision. At p.111 it is stated as follows: “As a corollary of the rule outlined above, the fact that no consequences of non-compliance are stated in the statute, has been considered as a factor tending towards a directory construction. But this is only an element to be considered, and is by no means conclusive.” (See also Crawford on Statutory Construction, Article 269 at p.535)” Regulation 23(3) of the Regulations, no doubt, requires APHB to ﬁx the ﬁnal sale price within a period of two years, which can be extended by the Government. It is by itself does not give any right to the allottee of a house to challenge the price fixation on that ground. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.09.2007 GJ [1] 2001 (1) ALT 228 [2] (2003) 2 SCC 111=AIR 2003 SC 511