IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 688 of 2009 Between: M.A.Saleem S/o.M.A.Kareem Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Accommodation) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Estate Officer, Hyderabad & Secunderabad Beside Vasavi Function Hall, Khairtabad, 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 declare the action of the respondent in not continuing the allotment of Government Quarter No.D-25 B-Blocks, Malakpet Colony, Hyderabad in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondents: GP For General Administration The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner, who is a Government employee, was allotted Quarter No.D-25, B-Blocks, Malakpet Colony, Hyderabad. On a request made by him, his allotment has been cancelled and allotted to another person. The petitioner states that though he sought cancellation of the allotment in contemplation of purchase of house, his efforts did not fructify, and accordingly, he made a request to the respondents to permit him to remain in possession of the same quarter. His grievance is that the respondents are trying to vacate him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for GAD. This is not a case where the allotment of the quarter in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on any punitive or disciplinary grounds. It was cancelled on a request made by the petitioner. It may be true that the petitioner planned to purchase a house and accordingly sought for cancellation. Had it been a case where the things stood the same as they were when the allotment was cancelled, the feasibility of continuing the petitioner could have been considered. After canceling the allotment in favour of the petitioner, the quarter was allotted in favour of another employee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to remain in the same quarter. At the most, he has to make fresh application. Having regard to the fact that the efforts of the petitioner to purchase a house did not fructify, he can be allotted the next available quarter. Hence the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing that the respondents shall allot next available quarter of the relevant category to the petitioner, on condition that he vacates the present quarter by the end of January 2009. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 23rd January, 2009 Js.