THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13242 of 2008 Date: 12.07.2011 Between: N.Murali Mohan ..... Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Bhima Singh Counsel for Respondents: Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar, standing counsel for APHB The Court made the following: ORDER: (on being mentioned) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling the auction proceedings confirmed earlier in respect of MIG house No.31 in favour of the petitioner and forfeiture of 1/4th bid amount vide proceedings in Lr.No.31/MIG/EM3/EE(H)NLR/2007, dated 13-02-2008, and consequential proceedings in Lr.No.31/MIG/KLP/EM3/EE(H)NLR/2007, dated 16-04-2008, of respondent No.2, as illegal and without jurisdiction. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that this writ petition is founded on the premise that the cancellation of petitioner’s allotment of house by the respondents is made through the proceedings dated 16.04.2008. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that as the petitioner failed to pay 3/4th of the sale amount, proceedings were issued on 22.11.2007 cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner and forfeited 1/4th deposit. In my opinion, unless the petitioner questions the said order, no relief can be granted in his favour. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said proceedings dated 22.11.2007 have not been served on the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to serve a copy of the said proceedings on the petitioner as and when he approaches respondent No.2 to enable him to question the same by availing appropriate remedy. The petitioner is entitled to take back the D.D. amounts submitted to the respondents in pursuance of the interim direction granted by this Court on 11.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.17102 of 2008. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.V.M.P.No.4209 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th July, 2011 GHN/LUR