HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13813 of 2002 18.01.2008 Between: A.Vasantha Lakshmi … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13813 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to register Quarter No.4 of Municipal Quarters situated at Gaddalaguntapalem, Ongole in the name of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner late Malakondaiah was an employee and worked during his lifetime in Ongole and Markapuram Municipalities. The members of his family including himself and the petitioner were allotted residential quarter bearing No.4 of Gaddalaguntapalem on 11.07.1983 on payment of rent to be recovered from his salary bill. When the respondents issued notice to the husband of the petitioner to vacate the quarter, he filed O.S.No.473 of 1990 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Ongole and the same was dismissed on 24.03.1993. Later, the husband of the petitioner appeared to have died on 10.07.1997. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 29.07.2002, wherein the above-mentioned relief is sought for. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 - Municipality. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989 in support of his contention that under the said G.O., the petitioner is entitled to purchase the quarter in her occupation. The learned counsel further submitted that though the husband of the petitioner approached the respondents on many occasions expressing his willingness to comply with the conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 28.10.1989, they have not taken any action. He also relied upon order, dated 09.04.1993 passed in P.C. Subbarayudu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Housing Municipal Administration, Hyderabad and another (W.P.No.5677 of 1989). On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia averred that when respondent No.3 issued a notice to the husband of the petitioner, he filed O.S.No.473 of 1990 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ongole and after the death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner is in occupation of the quarter unauthorisedly and without paying any rent. It is further averred that under G.O.Ms.No.56, the husband of the petitioner ought to have made an application claiming the benefit of the said Government Order and that he has not made any such application or deposited 1/5th cost of the quarter. The respondents also relied on an order of this Court passed in W.P.No.4229 of 1982 by claiming that in the said order, this Court upheld the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 28.10.1989. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 28.10.1989 shows that there had been practice of regulating the allotment of Low Income Group Houses (L.I.G.H.) constructed by Municipalities on hire purchase basis by following reservations in respect of defence personnel, State Government Employees including local bodies, industrial workers and general public and that without following the said principle, the Municipalities had been allotting the quarters on rental basis instead of on hire purchase basis. The Government having considered several representations, reviewed the matter and issued the said Government Order. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said Government Order are relevant for the present purpose and they are extracted hereunder: “6. Government have reviewed the matter once again and are of the view that since the existing persons have been in occupation of the houses constructed under L.I.G.H. scheme for more than 25 years having deposited 1/5th of the cost of the houses with Municipalities and having repaired the houses by investing huge amounts and paying house taxes; the instructions issued in the Government memo 4th read above not to sell these houses are bound to result in hardship to the occupants of the houses. This is particularly true in the context when the Government have approved as long who were already in occupation and who were eligible for such allotment on hire purchase basis and when again Government issued orders in the Memo 3rd above permitting the Municipalities to consider the cases of existing occupants who were in occupation for more than 2 years. 7. Therefore Government have decided that it is just and proper to allot houses on hire purchase basis to all those persons who were in occupation prior to October, 1986 as a special case as per the prescribed guidelines.” From the above reproduced paragraphs of the Government Order, it is clear that the Government has taken note of the fact that some of the municipal employees are in occupation of the quarters under L.I.G.H. scheme for more than 25 years and deposited 1/5th cost of the quarter apart from bearing repairing expenses and paying house tax and the Government felt that allotment on hire purchase basis is not made in favour of such persons, which will create hardship to them. Therefore, the Government felt it just and necessary to allot the houses on hire purchase basis to all those persons, who are in occupation prior to October, 1986 as a special case as per the prescribed guidelines. In her affidavit, the petitioner has not averred that during the lifetime of her husband, he made an application to any of the respondents for allotment of the quarter. It is not her case that her husband was prepared and offered to pay 1/5th of the cost of the house quarter, which is a condition precedent for seeking allotment under the above-mentioned Government Order. On her own showing, when the respondents sought for eviction of her husband, he filed O.S.No.473 of 1990 and it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, that the said suit was dismissed on 24.02.1993 with liberty to the plaintiff therein (the husband of the petitioner) to approach this Court, if he is seeking any relief on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.56. Though the date of death of the husband of the petitioner is not specifically mentioned in the affidavit, at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he died on 10.07.1997. Though he lived till 1997, for four longer years after the disposal of the suit, he failed to avail the remedy of filing writ petition in this Court. After his death, for a period of five years, the petitioner kept quiet without approaching the respondents or this Court. In my considered view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The husband of the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided for under G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 28.10.1989, which enables the municipal employees in occupation of residential quarters to seek purchase of quarters in their occupation on complying with the conditions contained in the said G.O. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner during the ourse of arguments stated that the husband of the petitioner repeatedly approached the respondents, I find no such plea in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition nor any material is placed before this Court in support of the said contention. As the petitioner’s husband failed to avail the opportunity provided for under the said G.O., long after his death, the petitioner cannot claim such benefit and the claim of the petitioner suffers from unexplained delay. From the facts already noted hereinabove, though the G.O., which is the sole basis for claiming the relief by the petitioner, was issued as far back as 28.10.1989, neither the petitioner’s husband nor the petitioner approached the appropriate forum till the year 2002 seeking benefit of the said G.O.. Though the Constitution does not stipulate limitation, the Constitutional Courts laid down that the person, who is not diligent in pursuing the rights cannot be allowed to pursue stale claims and that even if a person has strong case on merits, he will not be entitled to the reliefs, if he fails to explain inordinate delay in approaching the Courts (see State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai [1] , Trilokchand & Motichand v. M.B.Munshi [2] and Rabindranath v. Union of India[3]). The petitioner has not made any attempt to explain the long delay in approaching this Court. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on all these grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of Madras High Court in Pon Muthu Nadar and Muthu v. State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary, Industries Department and others (Writ Appeal Nos.2736 and 2737 of 2001, dated 29.06.2006). I have carefully considered the said judgment, but I am not convinced that it has any relevance or application to the present case because the said judgment turned on its own facts. In any case, in the face of the above mentioned settled law on doctrine of laches, the said judgment is of no avail to the petitioner. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th JANUARY, 2008. kvni [1] AIR 1964 SC 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110 [3] AIR 1970 SC 470