B.Chandraiah vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 773 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI


                     WRIT APPEAL No.71 of 2022

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




      The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

23.12.2021

passed in W.P.No.23237 of 2002.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a writ petition

was preferred way back in the year 2002 by one G. Maheshwar

Reddy stating that the application submitted by him for allotment

of quarter was prior in time and B.Chandraiah, Police Constable,

appellant in the present writ appeal, has filed his application

subsequently. Meaning thereby, it was submitted on 06.06.1997,

whereas, B.Chandraiah, appellant in the writ appeal, has

submitted his application in the year 1998 and he was allotted

quarter on 27.08.2000. The learned Single Judge has set aside the

allotment, which was made in favour of the appellant. The

reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is that the

application submitted by the writ petitioner was prior in time and

therefore, the application prior in time should have been given

preference instead of allotting the quarter to a person, who

submitted an application subsequently.

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by

the learned Single Judge and the same reveals that the writ

petitioner is having two ancestral houses in the township of

Karimnagar, whereas, the appellant does not have a single house

in the township of Jagitial. The order of the learned Single Judge

also reveals that the appellant is a police constable and he requires

some place i.e., Government quarter, whereas, the writ petitioner is

a Sanitary Inspector having two ancestral houses.

In the considered opinion of this Court, allotment of quarter

depends upon various factors. Merely because the application of

the writ petitioner was prior in time, it does not mean that a

person, who is continuing in Government accommodation, should

be thrown out after a lapse of 20 years. The appellant is certainly

a Government servant, but he does not have any house. The writ

petitioner is having two ancestral houses and therefore, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned

Single Judge deserves to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 18.02.2022 ES