THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.374 of 2009 Date:25.09.2009 Between: The Executive Officer, Chittoor. ..Petitioner and Sri T. Venkateswarlu and others. ..Respondents THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.374 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) In this writ appeal, the respondents in W.P.No.19866 of 2008 assail the correctness of order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition by order dated 27.11.2008. The subject matter of the writ petition was that the petitioners in the writ petition/respondents herein, who are employees of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (T.T.D.), are aggrieved by a condition imposed in a scheme proposed by T.T.D. to allot house sites to its employees. Under the scheme such employees, who have availed house building loans from T.T.D. and those who have been allotted plots on the earlier occasion were excluded from the benefit. Their grievance was that they were denied allotment of house sites on the ground that they have availed house building loans. The said action was challenged. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions on either side, was of the view that T.T.D. cannot discriminate among employees and employees, and it cannot treat the employees unequally. The learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition directing T.T.D. to consider cases of the respondents herein/petitioners in the writ petition along with other employees, by recording a finding, which reads as follows: It is too difficult to equate the employees, who have been allotted house sites on earlier occasion, with those, who have availed the HBL. It has already been mentioned that the employees, who otherwise acquire or own houses, are not excluded or disqualified. The HBL would enable the employee either to construct a house on the plot, which is already owned by him, or to purchase a built up house. Except that he has availed the loan facility from the Devastanam, he stands on the same footing as any other employee, who owns a house, otherwise than through allotment by the Devasthanam. In this writ appeal, the appellants/respondents in the writ petition questioned the direction given by the learned Single Judge. We had heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. During the earlier hearings of this appeal, the appellants have filed an additional affidavit, wherein it is stated that T.T.D. had initiated action for allotment of house sites in five areas mentioned therein and further lands have been identified at Chenchulakshmi colony and at an area near Renigunta Airport, to an extent of Acs.26.62 and Acs.182.00 respectively. It is also stated that immediately after completion of the land acquisition process, the cases of the employees, who have drawn house building loans or who have not been benefitted of the current scheme will be considered. It is further stated that the institution has larger interest of benefitting the employees to own a house, which was viewed as security for large number of working class persons. In addition to the above, the learned standing counsel for the appellants also fairly states that T.T.D. has no objection to consider the cases of all employees including the respondents herein. In view of the same, the direction of the learned Single Judge is cannot be said to be vitiated by any error. We, therefore, do not find any error warranting exercise of our appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865. The Writ Appeal is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J Date: 25th September, 2009 _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J GHN