IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13784 of 1999 Between: Mohd . Ismail son of Mohd.Ghouse, Officer of Executive Engineer Special Minor Irrigation Division, Utnoor, ITDA Building, Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer I and CADD, Irrigation Circle, irrigation Department Nirmal, Adilabad District 2 The Executive Engineer I & CADD Speical Minor, Irrigation Division Utnoor, Adilabad Dist 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer I & CADD, O & M Divisional ,No. 7. Kaddem Project, Adilabad Dist 4 The Engineer In -Chief , Irrigation Department (Minor) Erramanzil, Hyderabad 5 The Chairman Registrar, A.P Administrative Tribunal , 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 Setting Aside the Memo No. A4/Misc/175/49/UT, dt. 14/07/1998 and Lr. No. E3/WC/459/SE. on the file of Respondent No. 1 ordering Recovery of Rent for alleged occupation of hut/Shed, and consequently Set-Aside the orders in OA.NO.3173/99 dt. 22/06/1999 as bad in law and against the principles of Natural Justice, and further Direct the Respondents not to Recover any, so-called Rent for alleged occupation of hut/shed as it is against the provisions of fundamental Rules and other service rules, in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.A. No. 13784 of 1999 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 22.6.1999 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3173 of 1999. The petitioner herein filed the said O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the orders of Executive Engineer in SE.IC.Memo No.ES/EC3/442/M dated 25.9.1998 and consequential memos of recovery after declaring the action of the 1st respondent in recovering arrears of rent when no quarter was allotted to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to repay/release the amount already recovered since October,1998. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the petitioner to submit representation to the Superintending Engineer (I&CAD), Irrigation Circle, Nirmal explaining as to how he is not liable to pay the rent with a request to stay recovery also within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The Tribunal further directed the Superintending Engineer to examine the said representation and pass appropriate orders as per Rules within one month thereafter. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Watchman in Special Minor Irrigation, Utnoor, Adilabad District. As the petitioner was not having any house of his own, he was permitted to keep temporary sheds which were erected for providing shelter for Upper Division Clerk. The respondents allowed the petitioner to occupy the hut freely as he is working in Irrigation Department. In June 1992 the petitioner was transferred and posted to Utnoor under the control of 3rd respondent and ever since he is working at Utnool till today. Consequent to the transfer orders the petitioner was directed to vacate the hut No.3 to enable the new Watchman to occupy the same and as the petitioner is native of Kaddem village an as his family members wanted to stay at Kaddam and as he was contemplating to erect his own hut, he requested three months time for vacating the hut and after expiry of three months i.e. in October 1992 the petitioner vacated the hut No.3 and shifted to his own hut situated at Main Bazar Road, Kaddem. However, as no records are maintained, the petitioner does not know whether the fact that he vacated the hut was noted in the registers or not. It is the further case of the petitioner that no notice of any sort was issued to him at any time before 1998 directing him to vacate either hut No.3 or stating that he had to pay any arrears of rent. It is further stated that all of a sudden he received a copy of the letter addressed by 2nd respondent to 3rd respondent directing 3rd respondent to recover a sum of Rs.13,000/- and odd from the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to vacate the alleged Government Quarter i.e. the hut. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was not allotted any Government Quarter except a temporary hut since 1978 till August 1992 and that no allotment letter was given to him at any time since 1978 and as such he is not liable to pay any rent as alleged by the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioner that without issuing any show cause notice the respondents are recovering the alleged rent from the salary of the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that though he filed representation way-back in 1998 but the respondents did not stop recovery of rent but the Tribunal without considering the same again directed to file representation for the same facts. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents that the petitioner stayed in the Government Quarter without paying any rent and as such recovery was initiated from the salary of the petitioner and after deducting an amount of Rs.1027/- per month from the salary of the petitioner, the remaining amount was kept ready for disbursement but the petitioner refused to receive the same and as such by letter dated 25.9.1998 he was directed to explain why his salary kept ready for disbursement cannot be remitted to Treasury. As the petitioner refused to receive the salary, the same was remitted to Treasury. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the respondents have initiated recovery of rent from the salary of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner stayed in the Government Quarter allotted to him without paying the rent. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had not been allotted any Government Quarter and no such allotment letter is given by the authorities. There is no proper material available before this Court from the side of respondents to refute the said statement. Even if that is not taken into consideration, the fact remains that the respondents have not issued any prior notice before affecting recovery of an amount of Rs.15,757/- in monthly instalment of Rs.1027/-, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Having gone through the material available on record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned Memo No. A4/Misc/175/49/UT dated 14.7.1998 and Lr.No. E3/WC/459/SE ordering recovery of rent of Rs.15,757/- cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned Memo dated 14.7.1998 and Lr.No.E3/WC/459/SE and the order passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 15-04-2008.