Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47784 (AP)

Gotike Vijaya Laxmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/27572/2025 · 2025-10-07

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010533162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27572/2025 Between: 1. GOTIKE VIJAYA LAXMI,, W/O. LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. QUARTER NO. A/65, VIJAYAPURI SOUTH, NAGARJUNA SAGAR, PALNANDU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NAGARJUNA SAGAR PROJECT, OPPOSITE COLLECTOR OFFICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, , NSJ, O AND M CIRCLE, LINGAMGUNTIA, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , NSJC O AND M DIVISION, MACHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , NSJC, WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SUB DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAPURI SOUTH, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or 2 VS,J W.P.No.27572 of 2025 direction declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing Office Order.No.AB/EC.2/Quarters/527M, dated 14.08.2025 cancelling the allotment of residential quarter bearing No.A/65, in N.S.C.Camp Colony, Vijayapuri South, Nagarjuna Sagar, Palnandu District., without issuing any prior notice or following due process of law as arbitrarily, illegal, without authority, against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Office Order.No.AB/EC.2/Quarters/527M, dated 14.08.2025 passed by the 4’^'^ Respondent by allowing me to remit the rents pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.27572 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing Office Order.No.AB/EC.2/Quarters/527M, dated 14.08.2025 cancelling the allotment of residential quarter bearing No.A/65, in N.S.C.Camp Colony, Vijayapuri South, Nagarjuna Sagar, Palnandu District., without issuing any prior notice or following due process of law as arbitrarily, illegal, without authority, against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner’s husband, late Sri Gotike Venkata Reddy, during his lifetime worked as a School Assistant at Kothur, Marcharla Mandal. Upon a representation made to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner’s husband was allotted residential quarters bearing No.A/65 situated in N.S.C. Camp Colony, Vijayapuri South, Nagarjuna Sagar, Palnadu District, vide proceedings issued in O.O.No.B.I/B&B/2001-2002/207M, dated 18.06.2002, on payment of monthly rent. Since the date of allotment, the petitioner and her family have been residing in the said quarters, duly paying the requisite rent as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. b) It is further submitted that the petitioner’s husband passed away on 01.09.2016. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner and her family have continued to reside in the said quarters without any deviation from the conditions of allotment. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, at her own expenses, undertook repair works in the year 2024 to the extent of 4 VS,J W.P.No.27572 of 2025 Rs.3,00,000/- towards rectification of water leakage from the ceiling, flooring, toilets, bathrooms, wall cracks, plastering and internal wiring. c) While the matter stood thus, on 29.09.2025, during the petitioner’s absence in the quarters, the staff of the 4th respondent affixed an Office Order No.AB/EC.2/Quarters/527M, dated 14.08.2025, on the door of the said quarters, stating that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner’s late husband stood cancelled and directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the said order, and to hand over possession of the quarters to the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that by virtue of the proceeding in O.O.No.B.I/B&B/2001-2002/207M, dated 18.06.2002, the petitioner’s husband during his lifetime allotted a residential quarter, and even after the death of her husband, the petitioner entitled to reside in the said quarter by regularly paying rent to the respondents without there being any default. However, by the impugned Office Order No.AB/EC.2/Quarters/527M, dated 14.08.2025, the 4th respondent, without issuing any prior notice, straight away cancelled the allotment of the said quarter and also directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the order, by handing over the same to the 5th respondent. 5 VS,J W.P.No.27572 of 2025 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it can be observed that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioner, except stating that Condition No.1 of the allotment is violated. Further, nothing is placed on record to show as to which violation, if any, was made by the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the order impugned is not sustainable. The respondents, however, are bound to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner before taking any action against her. Admittedly, in the present case, no such notice was issued to the petitioner, and thereby, the 4th respondent has violated the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation would fairly submit that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.10828 of 2025, and requested to pass a similar order in this writ petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: 5…… On perusal of the impugned order, no specific allegations have been made against the petitioner except stating that condition No.1 of the allotment is violated. Further, nothing is placed on record to show that, what violation, if any, was made by the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the order impugned is not sustainable…. 6 VS,J W.P.No.27572 of 2025 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, issued by the 4th respondent, is hereby set aside, and the writ petition is allowed. 7. It is needless to mention that, if the petitioner contravenes any conditions of the allotment, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, issued by the 4th respondent. It is needless to mention that, if the petitioner contravenes any conditions of the allotment, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.10.2025 KGR