APHC010134622012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20400/2012 Between: 1. NEELAM APPALA NAIDU,, S/O. GOWRI NAIDU, AGED 60 YEARS, 2. NEELAM LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED 38 YEARS, 3. K.GOWRESWARI,, W/O. RAMBABU, AGED 25 YEARS 4. N.SAVITRAMMA,, W/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED 50 YEARS, 5. B.VARALAKSHMI,, W/O. VENKATA NAIDU. AGED 30 YEARS, 6. P.SATYAVATHI,, W/O. RAMA RAO, AGED 35 YEARS, 7. N.LAKSHMANA RAO,, S/O. RAMI NAIDU, AGED 30 YEARS, 8. N.VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O. LAKSHMANA RAO, AGED 32 YEARS, 9. K.APPANNA,, W/O. RAMAYYA, AGED 50 YEARS, 10. K.RATNALU,, W/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED 32 YEARS, 11. R.PADMA, W/O. SANYASI NAIDU, AGED 40 YEARS 12. T.SEETHAMMA, W/O. SANGAM NAIDU, AGED 45 YEARS 13. C.GANGAMMA, W/O. SANKAR RAO, AGED 45 YEARS 14. P. JAYA LAKSHMI, APPANNA, AGED 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. P.V.R. PURAM VILLAGE, VEERAGHATTAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., SUB DIVISION, VEERAGHATTAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VEERAGHATTAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: None appears for the Petitioners. 2. Sri K. Malikharjuna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel for Housing Corporation Limited and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, are present. 3. This Court has taken note of the Prayer and the Impugned Proceedings issued by the Respondents dated 18.05.2011 (Ex.P.1). The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the said Proceedings on the ground that the said 3 Proceedings do not indicate any reasons for raising the demand as mentioned in each of the Notices. This Court has perused the Impugned Order. 4. The first Paragraph of the Impugned Order would indicate that the Petitioners were sanctioned a House, and for the construction of such House, certain amounts were disbursed in favor of the Petitioners and materials such as Cement were also supplied. However, it is alleged that the Petitioners misused the funds and materials. The said Impugned Proceedings, however, have not mentioned any details or particulars evidencing the allegations. The space earmarked for Reasons is completely blank, without assigning a single Reason. 5. Having considered the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Proceedings have been issued without furnishing any details or particulars as well as Reasons. This Court also noticed that, by the Interim Order dated 06.07.2012 in W.P.MP.No.26159 of 2012, this Court recorded a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioners and accordingly suspended the Impugned Proceedings dated 18.05.2011 bearing Rc.No.2 of 2010. The said Interim Order would operate until further Orders. Therefore, the said Interim Order has operated in favor of the Petitioners and against the Respondents till date. 6. Having considered the above facts, this Court, on perusal of the Impugned Order dated 18.05.2011, is in agreement with the contentions of the Writ Petitioners, as noticed in the Affidavit filed in support of this Application, to the effect that the Respondents have not followed the Principles of Natural Justice, inasmuch as the Official Respondents failed to furnish Reasons in the Impugned Proceedings. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Impugned Proceedings are unsustainable in law, and accordingly, the said Impugned Orders bearing Rc.No.2 of 2010 (Ex.P.1) (Page Nos.12 to 53) are set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. 4 9. It is clarified that the Official Respondents always have the liberty to initiate fresh Proceedings in accordance with law, by furnishing Reasons in terms of the alleged misuse of funds and materials, if so advised. 10. The Official Respondents are statutorily obligated to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice and to follow due Process of Law in the event that fresh Proceedings are sought to be initiated against the Petitioners. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 22.12.2025 DSV 5 108 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20400/2012 22.12.2025 DSV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 20400/2012 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 6. 22.12.2025 GRKP, J Writ Petition is allowed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 7