SATYA BRATA SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE sole question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether imposition of penal rent upon the petitioner for not vacating the quarter allotted to him is legal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was posted at Rajam as head Draftsman Grade II and was allotted a Government B-2 quarter. He occupied the said quarter from 14-7-1986. The rent for the said quarter was fixed at Rs. 280. 00p. m. He was not paid any house rent allowance. He was transferred to Parvathipuram and said order of transfer was the subject matter of an application before the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal. An orde of status quo was passed but allegedly it was not implemented and he was finally relieved on 27-6-1993. ( 3 ) FOR alleged occupation of the said quarter illegally a penal rent of Rs, 1,590/- p. m. was imposed upon him. The petitioner approached the Lok Ayukta who had asked him to vacate the quarter but he did not do so. According to the petitioner as he had not beep paid his house rent allowance which should come to Rs. 360. 00 p. m. and having regard to the fact that the standard rent of the said quarter was fixed at Rs. 280. 00, the imposition of penal rent at Rs. 1,590. 00 was illegal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said application stating that the petitioner was an encroacher of the Government quarter at Rajam and was occupying the same without any authority whatsoever. ( 4 ) THE short question. which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether there exists any provision for imposition of a penal rent. The learned government Pleader has drawn our attention to Rule 45-A-VIII (12) (Hi) of the a. P. Fundamental Rules which is in the following terms:"rent chargeable to pensioners, (i ). . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . (iii) Where the occupation is without the permission of the competent authority, rent should be charged as detailed below: Interest on capital cost of the buildings plus maintenance charges in addition to the rent assessed as per local rates in accordance with para 275 of andhra Pradesh Public Works department Code. . . . . . . . . . (iii) Where the occupation is without the permission of the competent authority, rent should be charged as detailed below: Interest on capital cost of the buildings plus maintenance charges in addition to the rent assessed as per local rates in accordance with para 275 of andhra Pradesh Public Works department Code. " ( 5 ) HOWEVER, it is evident from the heading of the said rule that the same is wholly inapplicable in view of the fact that the same refers to the rent payable by a pensioner who is unauthorisedly occupying the quarter. ( 6 ) "furthermore, the aforementioned rule has been omitted by reason of G. O. Ms. No. 30 (Finance and Planning FW. FRI-1) department, dated 2-3-1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has drawn our attention to rule 45-A-IV (C) (ii) relevant -portion whereof operates thus:"by general or special order, provide for taking rent in excess of that prescribed in sub-clause (b) above from an officer- (1) who-is not required or permitted to reside on duty at the station at which the residence is supplied to him, or (2) who, at his own request, is supplied with accommodation which exceeds that which is appropriate to the status of the post held by him, or (3) who is in receipt of a compensatory allowance granted on account of dearness of living, or (4) who is permitted to sub-let the residence supplied to him, or (5) who sub-lets without permission the residence supplied to him, or (6) who does not vacate the residence after the cancellation of allotment. ". ( 7 ) IT has not been pointed out to us that any general or special order has been issued in this regard. In absence of any general or special order having been issued, we are of the opinion that although the conduct of the petitioner herein is deplorable, the concerned respondent could not have imposed any penal rent. It is now well settled proposition of law that a statutory authority must act within the four corners of the statute. It is equally well settled that when a procedure has been prescribed under a statutory rule, such procedure must be strictly adhered to. It is now well settled proposition of law that a statutory authority must act within the four corners of the statute. It is equally well settled that when a procedure has been prescribed under a statutory rule, such procedure must be strictly adhered to. Having regard to the aforementioned well settled principle of law and keeping in view the fact that no provision has been brought to our notice authorizing the respondents to impose the penal rent, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The writ Petition is allowed. No costs.