Disposed

K. Vamshi Reddy v. The A.P. Housing Board

Telangana HC23 Sept 2024WP/32832/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner on a 2005 waiting list challenged the Housing Board's auction of vacant flats without allotting them to waiting-list candidates. Court directed respondents to consider petitioner's case strictly per Housing Board Regulations if flats remain unauctioned and he remits amounts; petition disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's allotment per Housing Board Regulations if flats not auctioned and he remits amounts.

K. Vamshi Reddy Vs The A.P. Housing Board — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPeciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32832OF²⁰¹⁰

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Vamshi Reddy, S/o.^{K. SubashReddy PrivateEmployee R/o. Plot No- 5-8,HUDA} Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga^{Reddy District, Hyderabad}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The A,P. Housing Board, Rep.^{by its ManagingDirector, i'l J. Raod,} Nampally, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Executive Officer, South^{Division,A P. Housing Board,l,4 J. Raod,} Nampally, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226^{of the constttution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the Highcourt may be} pleased to lssue an appropriate writ or^{direction particularly one in the natureof} writ of mandamus, declaring the^{actionof the respondents in going ahed with the} auction of the vacant^{flats bearingNo. A1/102' 1O4,2O2' 206.2O7,305. 306' 402'} 4Ol and 408 through^{impugnednotification No. B.Guda/E6/EE(Sy2010dt'} 8.12.2010 situated in A-P-^{HousingBoard colony, Bandlaguda, Saroornagar} mandal, Ranga Reddy District^{without allotting themto the candidates whoare in} waiting list since 2005 as^{illegal, arbitrary, capriciousand in violation of Art. 14} and 21 of the constitution of^{lndia and consequentlythe petitionerpraythis} honble court may be^{pleasedto direct the respondentsto considerthe petitioner} case for allotting the flat No.^{A1t2O7as requested through his representation or} any other flat as^per the notification^{issued in 2005.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 41117OF 2010)

¶16

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 stay all further proceedings of the notification No. B.Guda/E6/EE(S )/2010 dt, 8.12.2010 in respect of the flats no. A1l1O2, 104, 2O2, 206, 207, 305, 306, 402, 4Ot and 408 pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and fair ptay.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G.VISHWESHWAR REDDY (SC FOR T S H B) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.32832 of 2010

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶23

'....to an apprcpiate utrit or direction^particularLg one in^{the nqture} of tuit of mandqmus declairq the action of the respondents in going ahead uith the aucttort of the uacdnt Jlats bearing No.Al/ 1O2, 1O4, 2O2, 206, 2O7, 3O5, 306, 4O2, 4O7 and 408 through impugned notiftcqtion No.B.Guda/ E6/ EES/ 2010 dt 8.12.2O1O situated in A. P. Housing Board Cotony, Bandlaguda, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddlt Distict, tuithout alLotting them to the candidates utho are in waitttrg fusa since 2005 as ilLegal, arbitrary, capricious and in uiolation of Arlicle,s 14 ond 21 of the Constitution oJ India ond cotsequentlg llte petitloner proA this Hon'bLe Court mag be pleasecl to direct the respotldetts to constder th,e petitioner case for allottitrgl t he,- Fktl. No.A1/207 as requested through his representatlon or otlg other llal es per the noti,fication issued in 2OO5....'

¶24

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.l has issued an advertisement in the year 2OO5 announcing that it has constructed residential flats in Bandlaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and in response to the said notification, he applied for allotment ol flats vide application No.14304, dated 07.O 1.20O5 duly remitting a sum of RsPSOO/- and his name was in waiting list at serial N0.545 and ] further, he a,lso made a rcquest to allot flat No.A- I / 2O7. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has

¶26

¶27

published a norihcation No.B.Guda/E6/EE(S)/20tO. clated 08.12.2O1O inviting fresh applications for the purpose ol auctioning r,he flats bearing Nos.Al/ 102, lO4, 2O2. 206, 2OT, 305, 306, 4O2, 4OZ and 4O8 situated in A. p. Housing Board Colony, Bandlaguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is the further case of the petitioner that thougl,r he has requcstc-'d to allot flat No.AI l2OT , the respondents did not allot rhe sairl flat, even though he is in waiting list since 2OO5. It is the lurrhcr case of the petitioner that he submitted another represent:1Lion datcd 23.OS.2OOg before respondcnt No.2 requesting tlte cletails of allotment of flats to thc candrdates in the rvaitins list, but no action has been taken on the said represenL:ltion and the respondents are now going ahearl with the auction of thc above said vacant flats, without allotting them to the candiciaLes vr.ho are in waiting list since 2005.

¶28

Learnecl Standing Counsel for Telangana State Housing Board appe a rir-rg lor the respondents submits that as the applicants have not come forward to deposit the amounts for the vacant flats available, they are proceeding to auction the said flats.

¶29

¶30

Since it is the case of the petitioner that vacant flat Nos.Al/1O2, 1O4,2O2,206,2OT, 3OS, 306, 4O2, 4OZ and 4O8 are available at A. P. Housing Board Colony, Bandlaguda, Bandlaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition dirccting the respondents to consider thc case of the petitioner, strictly in terms of the Housing Board Regulations in force, if the said flats are not auctioned so far and if the petitioner is ready to remit the amounts for allotment of thc said flats.

¶31

With the above observations, the Writ pctition is disposed

¶32

of.^'I'here shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in ttris Writ Pctition shall stand closed.

¶34

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE ION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board, tvl.J. Raod, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶40

The Executive Officer, South^{Division, A.P. Housing Board' M-J. Raod,} Nampally, Hyderabad

¶41

One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA^{GOUD, Advocate.} [OPUC]

¶42

One CC to SRI G.VISHWESHWAR^{REDDY, (SCFOR T S H B).} [OPUC]

¶43

Two CD Copies

¶44

BSK

¶45

AlGJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310912024

ORDER

i a,
o
usut2ffi I
,j)
/Y
{
JJr,A r CHEO
t

¶50

WP.No.32832 of 2010

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

@ffc*

K. Vamshi Reddy v. The A.P. Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Vamshi Reddy v. The A.P. Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The Union of India and 3 Others

Smt. v. Jyothi Vs The Union of India

Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs Union of India, Ministry of Railways, and 4 Others

M/s. Bsr Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Ronak Kumar Aggarwal Vs Regional Passport Office.

Thatti Narsimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana