Dismissed

A.P. Housing Board, v. Yallu Eswara Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Aug 2021WP/4996/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Lok Adalat award granting an applicant a refund of housing costs. The Court rejected jurisdictional objections based on statutory notifications and affirmed the award dismissed by the Patent Lok Adalat, holding that Housing Board services constitute public utilities and the adalat followed proper procedure after failed conciliation.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

A.P. Housing Board, Vs Yallu Eswara… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4996 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶4

Heard Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Housing Board appearing for the petitioners, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.3.

¶5

Assailing the order, dated 27.9.2019, passed in P.L.A.C.No.428 of 2018 by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kadapa, the present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the award as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to, as arrayed in the award.

¶7

The facts are that the petitioner has submitted an application for purchase of a house unit developed by respondent No.2 on 12.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for allotment of MIG House No.269 in phase-5 of A.P.H.B. Colony, Proddatur at a tentative cost of Rs.16,58,000/-. Accordingly, respondent No.1 sent a letter, dated 11.1.2013. Further, vide notice, dated 11.1.2013, the petitioner has been intimated about depositing EMD at 10% and requiring him to pay four down payments within five months i.e., by 31.5.2013. The petitioner

¶8

¶9

paid Rs.8,96,000/- as on 4.3.2013. The remaining work of the construction of MIG House No.269 was completed on 15.5.2014. Therefore, the petitioner paid the balance amount of Rs.7,61,000/by 2.1.2014 but respondent No.1 charged interest of Rs.90,198/over Rs.7,61,000/- in spite of the fact that the construction was completed only on 15.5.2014. Further, the respondents collected a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under the guise of Electricity Meter Deposit. The respondents allotted 198 sq.yards site to the petitioner in respect of MIG-269 house plot whereas the demand letter was showing the extent of site as 213.88 Sq.yards. Respondent No.1 has sent a letter, dated 6.12.2014 fixing the final cost of the house at Rs.20,75,100/- and called upon the petitioner to pay additional amount of Rs.4,17,000/-.

¶10

Aggrieved by the said notice, W.P.No.661 of 2015 came to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court by the petitioner and others, which was dismissed on 22.6.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation on 19.11.2017 to the Municipal Administration Department seeking waiver of additional interest and extra cost at Rs.1,11,198/- and to execute the registered conveyance deed. Having regard to the above, it is stated that the Housing Board demanded the petitioner to pay the difference amount, stating that unless the said amount is paid, they will not register the sale deed. The petitioner was constrained to obtain registered sale deed without prejudice to his claim for refund of the additional interest charged. Hence, an application came to be filed before the Lok Adalat under Section 22(C) of the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short, “the A.P.L.S.A. Act”)

¶11

¶12

seeking refund of the amount paid by him i.e., 1,47,210/-, which was collected by the A.P. Housing Board.

¶13

By an order, dated 27.9.2019, the application filed by the petitioner was partly allowed. The operative portion of the order reads as under:-

¶14

“In conclusion it is held that the petitioner established substantially that he is entitled for Rs.1,19,500/- and the grounds for passing an award to pay Rs.1,19,500/- by the respondents No.1 & 2 but not against R3.

¶15

In the result, the petition shall be allowed partly and award shall be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents 1 and 2 with a direction that the respondents shall pay Rs.1,19,500/- with further interest @ 6% per annum there on from the date of this award i.e., 27.09.2019 till the date of payment and that the award shall be communicated u/s.22(E) of APLSA Act to the Hon’ble District Judge Court, Kadapa for purpose of execution and that the petition against R3 is dismissed.”

¶16

Challenging the same, the A.P. Housing Board preferred the present writ petition.

¶17

Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as the Housing Board does not fall within the meaning of ‘Public Utility Services’, as defined in the A.P.L.S.A. Act. He further submits that without following the procedure contemplated under Section 22(C)(7) of the A.P.L.S.A. Act, the authorities could not have adjudicated the matter.

¶18

The same is opposed by Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, stating that in view of the amendment vide Notification No.SO 495(E), dated 16.02.2016, of

¶19

¶20

Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice, published in Gazette of India, Housing and Real Estate Services are brought under the purview of ‘Public Utility Services’ and that the procedure contemplated under Section 22(C)(7) of the A.P.L.S.A. Act has been followed, which is evident from the order itself.

¶21

In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the Gazette Notification, dated 16.2.2016, which reads as under:

¶22

“S.O.495(E).- In pursuance of clause (b) of Section 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), the Central Government, in the public interest, hereby declares the following services to be public utility services with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, namely:-

¶23

“(a) education or educational institutions; or

¶24

(b) housing and real estate service”

¶25

From a reading of the above, it is very much clear that the Central Government, in public interest, declared housing and real estate services to be ‘Public Utility Services’ with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. The same was also published in the Gazette. Therefore, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter cannot be accepted.

¶26

Insofar as the second contention i.e., the procedure contemplated under Section 22C(7) is not followed by the respondents, it is to be noted that efforts were made to settle the disputes between the parties but none of them came forward to record a settlement. In order to appreciate the same, the relevant

¶27

¶28

portion of the order wherein there is a reference to the procedure

¶29

that is followed reads as under:-

¶30

“During the course of conciliation no settlement reached to pass an award. The following point formulated for determination:

¶31

Whether the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,47,210/- or not. Notice issued u/s.22(C) 4 to 7 of APLSA Act for response on the conciliation. But both side parties did not come forward to report a settlement on the above point formulated for determination by way of conciliation. Therefore it is decided to proceed u/s.22(C)8 for determination of the issue on merits by following the procedure as contemplated u/s.22(D) of APLSA Act.”

¶32

A reading of the above would clearly indicate that since both the parties did not come forward for settlement, the Permanent Lok Adalat decided to proceed under Section 22(C)(8) by following the procedure contemplated under A.P.L.S.A. Act.

¶33