M PRABHAKARA RAO Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for a flat out of the proposed HIG Duplex flats at Bharat Nagar Colony, under Self Financing Scheme on January 30, 1988, along with an earnest money deposit of Rs. 16,000/-. On February 24, 1988 he was informed that his application would be considered at the time of drawal of lots for selection of allottees. On 6-3-1988 the lots were drawn. The petitioner was placed in the list of selected applicants and the 2nd respondent was placed in the waiting list. On 16-3-1988 intimation of allotment was given to the petitioner and he was asked to pay Rs. 1,44,000/- within 12 months from the date of receipt of the letter of intimation The said letter was received by the petitioner on 24-3-1988 and the. offer contained therein was accepted. But he failed to pay the first instalment within 30 days of receipt of the letter and execute an agreement for sale in Form 5 as required under Clause 3 of the said letter. On 16-4-1988 the wife of the petitioner applied to the Housing Board seeking extension of time by one month to pay the first instalment on the ground that the petitioner was out of station. On 10-6-1988 she deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- through a Demand Draft drawn on the State Bank of India. On 21-6-1988 the 1st respondent Housing Board cancelled the allotment of the flat in favour of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of the first instalment in execution of agreement and he was asked to apply for refund of the earnest money deposit, which, it was stated, will be refunded after deducting 2% under G O Ms. No. 28 dated 26-7-1987, and on the same day the said flat was allotted to the 2nd respondent. On 29-6-1988 the Demand Draft of Rs. 20,000/- sent by the wife of the petitioner was returned to the petitioner. This action of the first respondent is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner prayed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in cancelling the allotment of the H I G Duplex Flat under Self Financing Housing Scheme at Bharatnagar Colony, near Kukatpally, Hyderabad as illegal and without jurisdiction. In W P M P 1100/89 the prayer in the writ petition was allowed to be amended by adding the prayer to quash the proceedings alloting the petitioner's flat in favour of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The 2nd respondent in his affidavit filed along with the petition to implead him as a party, has stated that the allotment of the flat in favour of the petitioner was rightly cancelled and that pursuant to the allotment letter dated 21-6-1988 which was received by him on 25-6-1988, allotting the said flat in his favour, he has raised loan and paid an amount of Rs. 48,000/- on 21-7-1988. It is in addition to the earnest money deposit of Rs. 16,000/-made at the time of the application which is lying with the first respondent. He further stated that if the letter of cancellation of the allotment of the flat made under the impugned order, is quashed, he would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss.

(3.) Smt. Sumalini Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, that neither in the letter of intimation nor at any time thereafter it was intimated to the petitioner that in default of payment of the first instalment the allotment of flat made in favour of the petitioner, will be cancelled and that the allotment is cancelled without any notice to the petitioner and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.