IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22066 of 2005 Between: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, A Body Corporate established under S.3 of Secretary, Sri Suresh Poddar, 'Gruhakalpa' M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad, ..... PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Udyog Bhavan Complex, 3rd Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam-530 003, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the action of the Respondent Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority in seeking to take back the site measuring 3660 sq. yards situated in S.No. 9/1 and 9/3 of Venkojipelem Village, Muvvalapalem, Visakhapatnam , which was allotted/sold to the petitioner Board as long Back as in 1981, by issuing proceedings in Rc.No. 10494/90-F4, dt. 24-9-2005 and subsequent proceedings thereby preventing the petitioner Board from exercising its right to dispose of its own property by issuing press releases as without jurisdiction, contrary to law and illegal and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MRS.V.PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22066 of 2005 ORDER: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) ﬁled the instant writ petition assailing the letter of the Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), the sole respondent herein, dated 24.09.2005, which reads as under. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY To The Regional Housing Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam-10. Rc.No.10494/90-F4, dated 24.9.2005 Sir, Sub: VUDA – Visakhapatnam – Allotment – Allotment of land to A.P.H.B for construction of office Building – Regarding. Ref: Paper Notiﬁcation in “Vaartha” daily paper dt.23.9.2005. * * * With reference to the paper notiﬁcation cited, I am to inform that the land situated in S.No.9/1 and 3 of Venkojipalem (v) measuring an extent of 3600 sq.yards allotted to A.P.H.B @ Rs.40/- per sq.yd for the purpose of construction of Guest House and Regional Oﬃce of A.P.H.B Visakhapatnam. It is noticed that you have made a notiﬁcation on 23.09.2005 in “Vaartha” daily news paper that you have proposed to sale the land measuring an extent of 3660 sq.yds by auction which is allotted to you by VUDA for construction of Guest House and Regional Oﬃce of A.P.H.B Visakhapatnam only. Moreover the title is vested with VUDA only as no registration is done in favour of A.P.H.B as on date as per the records available. I therefore request you to drop the said proposal and handover the site to VUDA so that the land cost paid by you will be refunded. Yours faithfully, Sd/- xx xx 24.9.2005 For Vice Chairman There is a dispute between APHB and VUDA as to whether the latter allotted 3660 square yards of prime land in Survey Nos.9/1 and 9/3 of Venkojipalem Village, Muvvalapalem, Vishakapatnam, to APHB on concessional rate for the construction of Regional Oﬃce and Guest House. There is also dispute whether VUDA is entitled to resume the land by addressing letter as above. In the opinion of this Court the dispute between two public authorities created under statute, ordinarily, cannot be brought before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These matters have to be resolved mutually at the Governmental level involving the representative statutory authorities. This was so held in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Collector of Central Excise[1], Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Collector of Central Excise[2], Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt.of A.P. v Collector [3] and Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v City & Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd.[4]. In Chief Conservator of Forests (supra) emphasizing a coordinated nonconfrontative and nonlitigative approach to resolve inter and intra departmental disputes and skirmishes, the Supreme Court observed as under. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or the CPC that two departments of a State or the Union of India will ﬁght a litigation in a court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or the Union of India to ﬁght litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in co-ordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only against the propriety and polity as it smacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. The States/Union of India must evolve a mechanism to set at rest all interdepartmental controversies at the level of the Government and such matters should not be carried to a court of law for resolution of the controversy. In the case of disputes between public sector undertakings and Union of India, this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise (1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 432) called upon the Cabinet Secretary to handle such matters. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Cental Excise (1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541), this Court directed the Central Government to set up a Committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor dispute between Ministry and Ministry of the Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been ﬁrst examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. The Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a speciﬁc case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior oﬃcers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline. (emphasis supplied) The above observations were also quoted in Punjab & Sind Bank v Allahabad Bank[5]. As observed supra, the dispute in this case is with regard to 3660 square yards of land allotted by VUDA to APHB, which now wants to dispose of by public auction. This has to be resolved by the Ministry of Housing and Ministry of Municipal Administration, which are the controlling Ministries of the petitioner and the respondent statutory authorities respectively. Pending further decision by the Government, the petitioner and the respondent shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession. The Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.10.2008 vs To 1 The Vice-Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Udyog Bhavan Complex, 3rd Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam-530 003. 2 2CCs to 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432 [2] 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 [3] (2003) 3 SCC 472 [4] (2007) 7 SCC 39 [5] (2006) 4 SCC 780