HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.11476 of 2002 Order: The petitioner, a retired employee of the third respondent- municipality, has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the orders of the Government dated 29-05-2002 issued in Memo No.2996/HB.II-2/2001. 2. By the aforesaid order, the first respondent-Government has decided to implement its earlier orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.37, Housing (HB.I) dated 11-04-2000 allotting LIGH quarter No.20/540 situated in the municipal limits of Kadapa in favour of the fourth respondent, who is also a retired Manager of the third respondent-municipality, on hire-purchase basis as an alternative accommodation in place of quarter No.20/543. 3. Certain LIGH quarters were constructed by the third respondent-municipality with the loan assistance extended by the Government in the municipal limits of Kadapa. Initially, the said houses were allotted to the employees of the municipality on rental basis. Subsequently, while considering several representations from the occupants of quarters stating that such quarters be allotted to them in view of their longstanding possession, on hire-purchase basis, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.56, Housing, dated 28-10-1989. In the said G.O., Government decided to allot quarters to the employees of the third respondent-municipality who are in occupation prior to October, 1986, on hire-purchase basis, for a minimum period of two years. The petitioner herein, a retired employee, while in service, was residing in quarter No.20/540 since June 1988. He made representation for allotment of the said quarter. His request was negatived by order dated 22-10-1992 on the ground that the said quarter is not meant for allotment under hire-purchase scheme. Aggrieved by negation of his request, he approached this court by way of W.P.No.13308 of 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court by order dated 21-02-2000 in view of the stand of the respondents that the said quarter was not constructed out of the money allotted by the Government for the purpose of allotment of houses under hire-purchase scheme. 4. The fourth respondent herein was in occupation of quarter No.20/543 for more than two years prior to October, 1986 and he was entitle to apply for allotment of quarter under hire-purchase scheme. As such, when he made a request for allotment of the said quarter on hire-purchase basis, his request was turned down on the ground that the same was allotted to one Mr. S. Ramachander Rao. He too approached this court questioning the rejection of allotment of quarter by way of W.P.No.12542 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court with the following directions: “Since the petitioner is entitled for allotment of a quarter on hire-purchase basis under G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 28-10-1989 and since the quarter in which the petitioner resided for more than two years prior to 1986 was already allotted to one S. Ramachander Rao, I direct the petitioner to make representation to the respondents for allotment of alternative accommodation of LIGH quarter in Cuddapah within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made, the respondents are directed to allot any LIGH quarter in Cuddapah on hire-purchase basis within eight weeks thereafter in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 29-10-1989. 5. As against the said order, when the municipality filed an appeal in W.A.No.1607 of 1998, a Division Bench of this court has modified the order of the learned single Judge with a direction to consider the case of the fourth respondent herein, in accordance with law. In view of the directions issued by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12542 of 1994, as modified by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1607 of 1998, the first respondent-Government considered the matter and issued G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 11-04-2000 allotting quarter No.20/540 to the fourth respondent herein. After the said G.O., was issued, the third respondent-municipality issued notice to the petitioner to vacate the quarter he is residing in. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.A.No.566 of 2000 challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.13308 of 1993 dated 20-02-2000 in which the rejection of the claim of the petitioner was confirmed by dismissing the writ petition. In the said writ appeal, a Division Bench of this court, by order dated 17-07-2000, issued directions to the following effect: “In view of these disputed facts, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that in case the Government comes to a conclusion that the quarter is meant for allotment under hire-purchase scheme, the case of the appellant would be considered for allotment in accordance with the rule before the said quarter is allotted to any other person. It is made clear that the case of the appellant will be considered along with the other applicants in accordance with the rules and regulations of the hire purchase scheme. In view of the above observations and the course accepted by the counsel for the parties the writ appeal is disposed of. The state is directed to decide the matter within two months from today. Status quo obtaining as on today with respect to possession of the quarter be maintained till then.” 6. In view of the said orders, the impugned order is passed by the Government in Memo No.2996/HB.II-2/2001 approving the decision taken in the earlier orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 11-04-2000. Hence, the present writ petition. 7. Heard Sri P. Gangaiah Nadu, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner, learned Govt. Pleader for G.A.D., Sri S.I. Newton, learned standing counsel for the third respondent- municipality and Sri M. Surendar Rao for the fourth respondent. 8. It is submitted by Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel, that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the quarter bearing No.20/540 is not constructed out of the funds sanctioned by the Government and as such the same cannot be allotted on hire-purchase basis contrary to the scheme. It is submitted that there are no valid reasons to ignore the claim of the petitioner and allot the quarter in favour of the fourth respondent herein and only due to the influence exerted by the four the respondent herein, orders are issued in his favour ignoring the claim of the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent-municipality and Sri M. Surendar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that as the claim of the fourth respondent was fitting into the scheme, he was preferred for allotment of quarter, over the petitioner. It is submitted that the fourth respondent was in occupation of quarter No.20/543 for a period of three years when he was in service prior to 1986; as such he was eligible for claiming quarter under hire-purchase scheme. It is contended that as the petitioner was not in occupation of the quarter prior to 1986 at all, he is not eligible for allotment of quarter. 10. From the pleadings on record, it is clear that the Government constructed certain quarters for allotting them to its employees for their occupation initially on rental basis. But the employees who are allotted quarters on rental basis and who stayed in such quarters for number of years made a representation and in view of the same, a decision was taken to allot the said quarters on hire-purchase basis. Though orders, in the shape of memos, were issued from time to time, finally orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28- 10-1989, in which the Government decided to allot LIGH quarters on hire-purchase basis for those who are in occupation for not less than two years prior to October, 1986. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the fourth respondent was in occupation of quarter No.20/543. When he applied for allotment of that quarter, his claim was rejected on the ground that the same was allotted to one Mr. S. Ramachander Rao. In that view of the matter, in the writ petition filed by the fourth respondent in W.P.No.12542 of 1994, directions were issued to the respondents herein to allot another LIGH quarter in CUDDAPAH ON HIRE-PURCHASE BASIS. Though a writ appeal was filed by the third respondent-municipality, the only modification made by the Division Bench of this court is that, instead of giving a positive direction for allotment, a direction was issued to consider for allotment as per the rules and regulations in force. Though the claim of the petitioner was not accepted on the ground that though the said quarter No.20/540 was not constructed with the loan assistance of the Government, so as to allot the same on hire-purchase basis, but, in view of the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.12542 of 1994, as confirmed by the Division Bench, there was no option except to consider the claim of the fourth respondent for allotting quarter No.20/540. Further, it is also to be noticed that even according to the petitioner he came into possession of the quarter during his service, at first instance, only with effect from June, 1988; as such he is not eligible for allotment in terms of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.56, Housing, dated 28-10-1989. The very basis for allotment of quarters under hire-purchase scheme is pursuant to orders of the Government in the aforesaid G.O., as such, when the petitioner was not in occupation of the quarter for any period prior to October, 1986, he is not eligible for allotment at all. Even after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.37, Housing (HB.I) dated 11-04-2000, in the writ appeal filed in W.A.No.566 of 2000, challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.13308 of 1993, this court issued directions to consider the claim of the petitioner, along with other claims in accordance with the rules and regulations of the hire-purchase scheme. In view of the orders of the Division Bench of this court, the matter is considered by the Government and the impugned orders are issued in Memo No.2996/HB.II-2/2001, confirming the allotment orders issued in favour of the fourth respondent in G.O.Ms.No.37, Housing (HB.I) dated 11-04-2000. As the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, having not been in possession of the quarter for a period of two years prior to October, 1986, as conditioned in G.O.Ms.No.56, Housing, dated 28-10-1989, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Government, confirming the allotment of quarter in question in favour of the fourth respondent herein. As it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the influence exerted by the fourth respondent his case was considered, ignoring the claim of the petitioner, I have perused the original record placed before this court by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent-Government and upon perusal of the same I do not find any basis for the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The claims of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent were considred in accordance with the directions issued by this court and in view of the eligibility criteria notified by the Government and as much as the fourth respondent was fulfilling the criteria, impugned orders are passed confirming the earlier allotment made in G.O.Ms.No.37, Housing (HB.I) dated 11-04-2000. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The wit petition is accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 08, 2009 MRR