Telangana State Tribal Employees Welfare Association v. arbitraryandViolatiVeofArticlel4

petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the Quarter No. AE/105, which is situated at N S P Dam, Nagarjuna Sagar' peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District and not to disposes the state Tribal welfare Association offrce from the Quarter No.AE/105 and not to handover the Quarter No.AE/105 to the Respondent No.6 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 to 5 : GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : - The Court made the following ORDER I THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JUKANTI ANIL KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2655 7 of2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the foltowing prayer: u...to isstre an appropriatc urit, ordcr or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in interfering into the peaceful possession of euarter No.AE/ 105 and interfering into the Telangana State Tribal Welfare activities in Quarter No.AE/ I05, which is situated at Nagarjuna Sagar l)am, Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District and trying to disposes the pctitioncr from the Quartcr No.AE/ 1OS without issuing any notice and without tollowing the due process of law by colluding with respondent No.6 and also trying to allot the Quarter of thc petitioner Organization on thc name o[ respondent No.6 is illegal arrd arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, lS, 2I and 3O0-A of Constitution of India alrd also violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequentlv direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the Quarter No.AE/105, which is situated at N.S.P Dam, Nagarjuna Sagar, peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District and not to disposcs the State Tribal Welfare Association Ofhce lrom the euarter No.AE/ 105 and not to be handover the Quarter No.All/ 105 to respondent No.6 ald pass such othcr order or orders...,,

2. It is the case of petitioner that an organization has been formed in the name and style of Telangana State Tribal Employees Welfare Association, registered vide No.1 139 of 1990 under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, that they approached the then Irrigation Authorities and made a representation for' allotment of a quarter. I Accordingly', the then Irrigatior-r Authorities allotted Quarter No.Atr/ 105, situated at Nagarjuna Sagar 'Project Dam' Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Peddavoora Mandal' Nalgonda District, rlidc Proceedings No.R1/NSD/97-98-1255 M, dated -

30.12.1997 [t is also the case of petitioner that thcy paid an amount 3. of Rs.9,076/- to the then Executive Engineer on 23'12'1997' vide D.D.No.698038, tor'r'ards erllotment of quarter(s) and they carried out modilications to the said quarter(s) incurring considerable exPenditure' tt is pointerl out that the Tribal Employees Welfare 4. Association activltles throughout the State of Telangana are being carricd out by petitioner' it is specificaliy pleaded in paragraph No.6 of the u'rit affidavit that petitioner is paying electricitv charges and rent to lrrigation Department' It is further the case of peti[ioner that they spent Rs' 5. 15.00 lakhs towards renovation of Government Quarter No.AE/ 105 and are carrying on their activities peacefully lt is alleged that Respondent No 6, without following due process of law, rr.ithout issuing notice, is interfering with their k -_,_. r-.i ..- .,'-.tL;'.rr- 'ri': , .1..'... -- :*_ ..,* +e e;"*,,, I 3 peaceful possession, trying to dispossess the office of the Tribal Employees Welfare Association and to allot the said quarters to some others

6. It is alleged that Respondent Nos.3 to 5 visited the quarter(s) on the lst, 7th, 14th, and 18th of August 2025 and called petitioner and the ofhce bearers and tried to dispossess them, despite their request not to interfere with their peaceful possession. It is submitted that petitioner approached the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Nidamanoor and filed a suit for injunction vide O.S.No.97 of 2025, wherein ad-interim injunction orders were granted in I.A.No.2O2 of 2025 and the said injunction is still continuing as on date. Attention is invited to page No.25 of the documents.

7. Learned counsel for respondents placed on record a copy of documents received from the office of lrrigation Department, i.e., the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Based on the said documents, it is submitted that, as per the contents at page No.3, quarter(s) was vacated on 2I.12.2OO4, and that, presently the quarters are under the custody of the District Collector. 4 B. It is further submitted that members of petitioner Association are creating public nuisance and disturbing the peace and tr-arquilitl. of the nearby residents. It is also submitted that members of petitioner Association have not vacated the quarters since 20O4 and have been insisting that quarters be gi',.en to Association for continuation.

9. Heat'd learned counsel for petitioner. perused the record and considere<l the submissions.

10. From the contenrs of Oflice Order No. R1/NSD/97_9g_ 1255 M dated 30.12.1992, it is observed that euarter No.Atr/105 r.r,zrs allotted to Andhra pradesh State Tribal Welfare Association on payment of rent at Rs.619/_, per month including water charges at Rs.60/_. That lease agreement u,as valid up to 31.12.199g. a letter, dated 23.12.1997 \\,as addressed by president o1- petitioner Association to the Executive Engineer, enclosing D.D.No.698038. towards deposit of Rs. 9, 176l_ for four (4) months' rent, as per Clause 6 of Office Order dated 30.12.1997 --_- -Tv - hr;# I .&:":- _ #Git'.,#iffiffii==P: 5

11. On a perusal of Clause S of the said document, it is seen that the agreement period was to conclude on

31.12.1998. No material is placed on record to show that the said agreement was extended for any further period. In the absence of such an extension, the continued occupation of the quarters by petitioner, i.e., euarter No.AE/ 105, cannot be treated as legal, it is not in accordance with law.

12. Attention of this Court is invited to an injunction order, dated 07.05.2025 said to have been granted in favour of plaintiff (petitioner herein) in I.A.No.2O2 of 2025 in O.S.No.97 of 2025 by Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nidamanoor. In Mr. Ramavath Munilal is arrayed as respondent against suit, whom the petitioner herein has filed the suit. The ad-interim injunction order restrains the respondent in suit and his henchmen from interfering with the petitioner,s peaceful possession. This does not in any way come to the rescue of petitioner to canvass that an injunction has been granted against the official respondents herein.

13. This Court is not inclined to delve into that aspect as the respondent authorities are not parties to suit. This Court \ quarried learned coun sel for Petltloner as to why nothing ts piaced on record to substantiate the claim that the petitioner continues to reside in Quarter No AE/ iO5 as on date' such as recerpts of rent, extension of the lease agreement or any other document u,hich aids the petitioner to substantiate his ciaim that he is continuing in the said quarters' 14. On the other hand' it is observed from the photo copy of the Register placed on record' duly attested by Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sub.Division-3, it is reflected that quarter has been vacated on 21' 12 '2OO4 ' the signature of the President of the petitioner Association' Mr. L.Deshya Naik, the office-bearer and President has affixed hissignatureontheRegistercopy(Mr.L.DeshyaNaikisthe petitioner herein)

15. A writ petition was liled earlier' bearing W'P' No'30530 Mr.Ramavath Munital against the official of 2024, bY one learned Single Judge, relying upon the respondents. The jr,rdgment of the Apex Court' helcl that' in respect of the same quarters, the petitioner therein had not made out any case rvarranting interference The prayer in W'P'No'3O53O of 2024 is as follolvs I *:$, . :*i v 7 "to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess/evict the petitioner from his residentia-l quarter No.AE/ tO5 without followrng the due process of law as being illegal arbitrary discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his quarter No.AE/ 1O5 Vijayapuri North Hill Colony Nagarjunasagar, Peddavoora Maldal, Nalgonda District T G and pass."

16. Surprisingly, the prayer in the said writ petition was for a declaration that the respondents i.e., the official respondents were trying to dispossess petitioner in Writ Petition No.30530 of 2024 from quarter bearing No.AE/105' Learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference. This Court cannot ignore the said order of learned Single Judge, it is evident that as on the date of filing of Writ Petition No.3053O ol 2024, the said quarter was claimed to be under the possession of Mr.Ramavath Munilal' In O.S.No.97 of 2025, the petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.6 is defendant and respondent No'6 is the petitioner in W.P.No.3OS3O of 2024. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3053O of 2024 is extracted herein: 8 "5. It is settLed principles of lau that the gouernfiLent quatlers allotted to emploqees or anA persons are not entitLed for regularization. There are cases where the occupants are so afJluent that theg are tuill.ing to pag the penal/ morket rent and are seek ry to regulaize the quarters allotted and continue to occupA the Gouernment Quorters. In the case of S.D.Bandi as. Divisional TrafJTc OfJicer, KSRTC and. othersl occupation of Gouernment accommodation bg the members of three branches of the State i.e., Legislature, executiue and the judiciary begond the peiod for u-.thich the same u)as allotted came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. [n Para 33, it utas obserued as follows: "Suggestions

33. Ttte follouing suggestions ulould precisely address the gieuances of the Central and the Stal.e Gouentments in regard to the unauthoised occuponts:

33. l. A-s a pre.cautlotTary me-asure, a notice should be sent to the allottee/ officer/ emplogee concented under Section 4 of the PP Act three months pior to the date of his/ her retirement giuing aduance intination to uacate the prernises.

33.2. T'he Depatlment concenred from u-,Lrcre the gouenl.mcnt seruant is goingl to retire must be made lioble for fulftlting the abouementioned formalities as utell as follow-up actions so thot rest of the prouisions of the Act can be effectiuelg utilised.

33.3. Tfut pinciples of natural justice haue to be follou-,ed ttshile seruing the notice. 'AtR 2073 Supreme Court 2507 9

33.4. After follott-ting the procedure as mentioned in SR 317-8-11(2) and 317-8-22 prouisos 7 ond 2, ttithin 7 uorking days, send a shotD-cause notice to the person concerned in uiew of the oduance intimation sent three montLs before the retirement.

33.5. Date of appearance before the Estate Officer or for personal heaing as mentioned in the Act after shotu-cause notice should not be more than 7 working dags.

33.6. Order of euiction should be passed as expeditiouslg as possible preferablg uithin a peiod of 15 days.

33.7. If, as per the Estate Offi.cer, the occupant's case is genuine in terms of Section 5 of the Act then, in the fi.rst instonce, an ertension of not more than 30 dogs should be granted. 33.8. The responsibility for issuance of the genuineness certificate should be on the Department concemed from uhere the gouenTment seruant has retired fo, the occupation of the premises for next 15 days and furtLler. Giuing additional responsibilitA to the Department concerned uill help in speedg uacation of such premises. Baseless or fiuolous applications for extensions haue to be rejected uithin seuen dags.

33.9. If as per the Estate Officer the occupont's case is not genuine, not more than 15 days' time slauld be gronted and thereafter, reasonable force as per Section 5(2) of the Act maA be used. 33.10. There must be a time-frame utithin hout much time the Estate Officer has to decide about the quantum of rent to be paid.

33.11. TLLe some procedure must be folloued for damages.

33.12. The arrears/ damages should be collected os cTrrears of land reuenue as mentioned in Section 14 of the AcL 10 I

33.13. There ntust be ct prouision for compound. interest, instead of simple intere.st as per Secfion 7.

3.3. 14. To make it ntore stingent, there rnust be some prouision for stoppage or reductiort in the monthly pension till the date of uacation of the premBes.

33.15. Under Section 9(2), an appeal shall tie from an order of euiction and of ient/ d_amages utithin 12 days from the dag of publication oi on tthich the order is communicated respectiuelg. 33.16. Utrder Section 9ft), d_isposaL of the appeals must be preferably toithin a penod of 30 dags in order to eliminate unnecessary delag in disposal orf such cases.

33. 1 _7. The liberty of the appellate off.cer to condone the delay tn fiIing the appeil und_er Section 9 of the Act should be exercised uery reluctantly and it should be an exceptionil practice and not a general rule. 33.18. Since allotment of the gouernment accommodation is a piuilege giuen to the Mirtisters and Members of pariament, the matter of unauthoised retention shouLd be intimated_ to the Speaker/ Chairman of the House and action should, be inittated bg the House Committee for the breach of the piuileges u_thich a Member/ Minister enjoys and the appropriate Conmittee shouLd recommend_ Speaker/ Cltairman .fo, taking appropriote action/ euictiott tuithh a time-bound periid. - -to '

33. 19. The Judqes of any fontm shall uacate the offi.cial residence uithin a period of one month from the date of superannuation/ retirement. Houteuer, after recording sufJicient reason(s), the time may be exlended bg another on 33.2O. Henceforth, no memorials shoutd. be alloued in future in ang gouerrLment houses earrnarlced for residential accommo dation ^onth.. I I 11

6. The principles laid down in the aforesaid deciston u.tere reaffirmed by tLrc Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union oJ India and. others us, On,kor Nath Dhar2 wherein it uas obserued as follotus: "lqfS_l_3: In uieut of the ludgments referred aboue, the Gouemment accommodation could not haue been aLLotted to o person uho had demitted office. No exception utas carued out euen in respect of the persons uho held Constitutional posts at one point of time. It uas h.eld that the Gouentment accommodation is only meant for in- seruice ofJicers and not for the retirees or those uho haue demitted office. Therefore, the uieu-t of the learned Delhi High Court and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is erroneous on the basis of compassiort showed to displaced persons on account of terroist actiuities in the State. The compassion could be shown for accommodating the displaced persons for one or two months but to ollotD them to retain the Gouernment accommodation already allotted or to allot an altematiue accommodation that too u-tith a nominaL licence fee defeats the uery purpose of the Gouentment accommodation u.thich is meant for seruing officers. The compassion hou.tsoeuer genuine does not giue a rbht to q retired person from continuing to occupA a gouemtnent accommodation. "

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has not made out anA case u-tarranting interference of this Court and this Wit Petition is dismissed, accordingly. 1Vo costs. " 17 . Petitioner has not substaltiated his claim except by averments, which are self-serving in nature. No receipts for rent payment as averred in paragraph No.6 are placed ' uaNulscloszqltozt record. In fact, the Register of the Executive Engineer speaks contrary to u/hat has been stated that quarter is vacated r,r,ay back on 2L12.2OO4. Petitioner herein has affixed his Signature on the register. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner is pursuing a vexatious litigation. This Court was inclined to lely costs but on a fervent request the same is dropped.

18. Learned counsel placed reliance on photographs in support of the claim and on typed electricity bills. In the absencc of ofhcia-l documents (i.e., bills given by electricity department, at least photo copies) or matcrials, this Court is not inclined to consider the submissions canvassed across the bar as they are devoid of merits. 1 9 . Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, il an1' are pending, shall stand d ism r ssed To 1 2 J SA PMK i/TRUE COPY// . Two CCs to GP FOR lRRt AND COMM AREA E for the State of Telangana at Hyde One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKA Two CD Copies rabad. [OUT] R, Advocate I S .K.BHAVAN ISTANT RE ISWAMYUIIBAR 7 SECTION OFFICER \ LOPMENT, High Court cI ,M. : i,' . ug8:;* fu#-.+,;i* -'-r{rr" r' ,,qijtfif.d,rt'' ' v,\ o3 1NL S ( ( I o o t 1 E u(fl 2026 Z C)L t HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 ORDER WP.No.26557 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. t; Un( \r.L