IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.26338 of 2000 and 6192 of 2001 Writ Petition No.26338 of 2000 Between: A. Ananda Rao, S/o. Late A. Surya Rao, R/o. Vizianagaram. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Secretary, Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme, SRBS, MSRD, Hyderabad. 3 Personnel Officer, ZWS, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram. 4 Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram Zone. 5 Secretary, Visakha Urban Development Authority, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction, by calling for the records in the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in No.M2/8 (27)/96 ZWS/VZM dated 27-11-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. I. Maamu Vani Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. C. Appaiah Sharma WRIT PETITION No.6192 of 2001 Between: 1 P.S.S. Appa Rao, S/o. Balaram, Vizianagaram 2 B. Sanyasamma W/o. Tatayyalu, Vizianagaram ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Secretary Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme, S.R.B.S., MSRD, Hyderabad. 3 Personnel Officer Z.W.S. APSRTC, Vizianagaram 4 Dy. Chief Personnel Manager APSRTC, Vizianagaram Zone 5 Secretary Visakha Urban Development Authority, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction by calling for the records in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in M2/8 (27)/96 ZWS/VZM dt: 27/11/2000 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. I. Maamu Vani Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. C. Appaiah Sharma The Court made the following Common Order: As much as both the writ petitions are filed questioning proceedings No.M2/8(27)/96-ZWS/VZM dated 27-11-2000, issued by Personnel Officer, Zonal Workshop, APSRTC, Vizianagaram, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, I refer to the facts as stated in W.P.No.26338 of 2000. 3. The petitioner was working as Shramik in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. He was allotted a house by Visakha Urban Development Authority, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, the fifth respondent. Based on the application submitted by him, an amount of Rs.63,000/- was sanctioned to him towards special house-building advance for purchasing the aforesaid house. Out of the sanctioned amount, an amount of Rs.58,000/- was released directly in favour of the fifth respondent as first installment and an amount of Rs.5,000/- was to be released afterwards. The said amount of Rs.63,000/- was to be recovered in 192 installments at the rate of Rs.858/- per month. On the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the title deeds of the property, the impugned proceedings are issued enhancing the monthly installment amount from Rs.858/- to Rs.2765/- payable in 48 installments. It was further ordered that if the enhanced amount of monthly installment cannot be recovered from the petitioner, action may be taken to recover the difference amount from the sureties, i.e. the petitioners in W.P.No.6192 of 2001. 4. The case of the petitioner is that as the title deeds were not released by the fifth respondent authority on the ground that final cost of the house is not arrived at, he could not deposit the same with the authorities of the Corporation. It is alleged that the impugned proceedings, modifying the conditions of the sanction order, are issued without prior notice and opportunity. 5. The Law Officer of APSRTC has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 stating that out of the total amount sanctioned, i.e. Rs.63,000/-, an amount of Rs.58,000/- was released initially and the balance of Rs.5,000/- was to be released after receipt of the title deeds from the petitioner. It is stated that the fifth respondent has fixed the cost of the house at Rs.1,20,500/- tentatively and the petitioner, who has paid the entire tentative cost of the house in the year 1996 itself, was to pressurize the fifth respondent to transfer the property in his name, but failed to deposit the title deeds for the purpose of creating mortgage in favour of APSRTC as per the stipulated conditions. 6. The allegation of the petitioner, that no prior notice or opportunity is given to him before the impugned proceedings were issued, is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. If for any reason the conditions stipulated in the loan sanction order were to be modified, the respondents ought to have given prior notice and opportunity to the petitioner, to put forth his case. Moreover, in this case, it is to be noted that an amount of Rs.58,000/-, which is initially released, is directly transferred to the fifth respondent authority and it is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the total cost of the house is already paid by the petitioner. When it is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent has not released the title deeds of the house, the respondents could not have issued the impugned proceedings without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the impugned proceedings is based on the letter dated 15-09-2000, referred in the second reference in the impugned proceedings, addressed by the Secretary, SRBS, Hyderabad. The said proceedings seems to have been issued without conducting any enquiry and opportunity to the petitioner. Taking all these aspects into account, this court is of the view that the impugned proceedings, modifying the conditions of sanction of loan amount, are issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, without going into the validity of the grounds raised in the impugned order, I set aside the impugned proceedings dated 27-11-2000, issued by the third respondent, Personnel Officer, ZWS, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram. This court, by order dated 29-12-2000, issued directions to the respondents to collect a sum of Rs.858/- only from the petitioner. As much as the said amount is fixed as per the original conditions of the memorandum, the petitioner shall continue to pay the same till the entire loan amount is discharged. 8. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. February 25, 2009 MRR