COMMON ORDER: 1. These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to register the plots in Sy.Nos.964 and 1009 of Kukatpally village in Phase-IV of the lay out plan prepared for A.P.H.B. Employees Housing Scheme in the individual names of the Housing Board Employees in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991 and for cancellation of the allotment of flats in G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006. 2. All the writ petitions are filed seeking the same relief against the same respondents, therefore, they are clubbed and heard together and this common order is passed. 3. The averments of the Affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are briefly as under: The petitioners are the members of the A.P. Housing Board Employees Phase-IV plot allottees Welfare Association represented by its President, Hyderabad. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners contended that the said Association was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Public Registered Societies Act, 1950 with registered No.4567 of 2000. The members of the Association are the employees of the A.P. Housing Board and they are allotted plots in phase-IV of the lay out at Kukatpally. In the year 1988, NGOs union of the A.P. Housing Board made a representation to the Board requesting for allotment of developed plots on the same analogy as was allotted to the Board employees on earlier occasions. The Board in its meeting, dated 29-07-1998 resolved to recommend to the Government to accord permission to allot 115 MIG, 181 LIG and 24 EWS plots to 320 employees in an extent of 13 acres of land situated at Kukatpally @ Rs.45/- per square yard including the cost of the land and development charges subject to the condition that no employee shall sell away the land and if there is any violation the land will be resumed by the Government. The Government was pleased to consider the request of the Board and accorded permission to allot plots to 320 employees on the southern side of phase IV of Kukatpally @ 45/- per square yard in G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991. The Government was pleased to consider the request of the Board and accorded permission to allot plots to 320 employees on the southern side of phase IV of Kukatpally @ 45/- per square yard in G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991. Accordingly, the individual plots were allotted to all the 320 members on 12-05-1991 and in Circular No.19407/EM.4/RHE:WD/88, dated 09-09-1991 directed the Regional Engineers and other drawing and disbursement officers to recover the cost of the plots and its development charges at Rs.300/- per month per MIG and Rs.265/- per LIG and Rs.1500/- per EWS respectively in 30 monthly instalments. The cost and development charges are recovered from all the allottees by 1994. The Housing Board, while sending proposals to the Government, indicated plot areas of MIG on 233 square yards, LIG 200 square yards and EWS at 111 square yards, which was worked out to 13 acres of lay out plan approved by the Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner on 31-03-1989. The actual area covered by the plots is worked out to 13.66 acres excluding the road, parks play grounds etc. and as such the matter was placed before the Board in its 423rd meeting held on 29-06-1992 and the Board has resolved to approach the Government for necessary amendment to G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991. As the land is under the control of the Board, the Secretary to the Government directed Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner to take action by himself. Thereafter, the Board in its 449th meeting held on 24-08-1995 resolved to allot Ac.26.541 of land to the employees of the Board at Rs.116/- per square yard against Rs.45/- which was approved earlier and the enhanced amount is also recovered from the employees. The Housing Board has to get the plots registered in the name of allottees. At this stage, the first respondent interfered with the decision of the Board and directed the Board not to register any plots in Phase-IV in favour of the A.P.H.B. Employees in terms of Board Resolution in 463 and 464 meetings till the Government gives a clear direction. Basing on such direction, the second respondent instructed the third respondent not to take further action to get the plots registered in the name of the allottees pending further orders in the matter. Basing on such direction, the second respondent instructed the third respondent not to take further action to get the plots registered in the name of the allottees pending further orders in the matter. The Principal Secretary to Government, without considering that the allotment was made in the year 1991, raised an objection on the ground that the present market value is at Rs.3,000/- per square yard, whereas the allotment was made at Rs.116/- per square yard. It was also mentioned that the land allotted was not suitable even for residential purpose. When the surrounding areas are developed after a gap of more than 10 years, the prevailing rate is found to be more and that cannot be a ground to stop registration when the entire sale consideration is collected by the Board. There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of the allottees and the Government itself has accorded permission in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991 for allotment of plots after considering the representation and after collecting the sale consideration. The allottees are poor employees and they have contributed their hard earned money with a fond hope of getting a plot, which would be an asset to them. The first respondent, having accorded permission through G.O.Ms.No.2, is estopped from raising any objection for registration of the plots and the direction not to register plots till the Government takes a clear decision in the issue is illegal and arbitrary. The Housing Board is not a profit making organization. It cannot do business in selling plots at higher rates. The Government having formulated a scheme contemplated under Regulation 21 of the A.P. Housing Board Act to allot plots to the employees of the Board and having issued G.O.Ms.No.2 to that effect, it is not open to the first respondent to interfere with the scheme detriment to the interests of the employees. Similar schemes were approved by the Government in the years 1979 and 1983 and all the employees, who were working and eligible as on the respective dates, were allotted. The present petitioners are some of the employees left over under the old schemes and joined in the service of the Board later. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court through these writ petitions requesting for the reliefs as prayed for. 4. The present petitioners are some of the employees left over under the old schemes and joined in the service of the Board later. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court through these writ petitions requesting for the reliefs as prayed for. 4. In the subsequent writ petitions filed in 2006, it is contended that subsequent to the direction by the first respondent not to register the plots in favour of the individual employees, the Government constituted a cabinet sub committee to examine the issue and after the report of the sub committee, appropriate orders will be issued in the matter. After examining the issue, the cabinet Committee submitted a report favouring allotment of house sites to the Housing Board employees. The sub committee report was placed before the cabinet for approval on 01-04-2005 and the cabinet approved the recommendations of the sub committee. While so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 canceling the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.2. It was further mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.32 that the Government permits the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board to construct and allot individual flats to the 320 employees of the Board who were earlier allotted individual plots. It is further mentioned that the allotment will be at the current rate of construction without charging the land cost and also interest @ 20 % per annum will be paid by the A.P. Housing Board on the amount paid by the employees initially towards land cost and approval of the Housing Board shall be obtained by the Vice Chairman. The above G.O. issued by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. G.O.Ms.No.2 has been acted upon and vested right has been given in favour of the members of the society. When once the G.O. has been accepted, it is not open to the first respondent to cancel the same at this length of time. No notice has been issued and no opportunity has been given to the members before passing the impugned order. The power to cancel the G.O., when there is no allegation of any misrepresentation on the part of the employees, has not been conferred on the first respondent. The action of the first respondent in cancelling the earlier G.O. is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The power to cancel the G.O., when there is no allegation of any misrepresentation on the part of the employees, has not been conferred on the first respondent. The action of the first respondent in cancelling the earlier G.O. is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Board has followed the parameters as laid down in the Act and has fixed the market value by keeping in view the then prevailing rates. The Board is the ultimate authority to fix the market value and the Government having delegated the power to the Board to take decision in the matter through the letter, dated 28-06-1994, it is not open to the first respondent to pass the impugned order after a decision has been taken by the Board. Had the decision been taken by the first respondent in the year 1990 itself, the members would have purchased other plots or would have applied in the open category for allotment of plots. The amount that is now being offered to the members of the petitioner- association cannot be a just compensation as it has no relevancy to the present market value of the property, therefore, prayed for the reliefs as mentioned above. 5. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit with the following averments in brief: The petitioners must prove the allegations in the writ petitions. The A.P. Housing Board conducted a demand survey among the employees who were appointed on or before 31-12-1984. In response to a Circular issued, 320 applications were received from employees in different categories. The A.P. Housing Board through the Resolution, dated 29-07-1988 resolved to recommend to the Government to accord permission for allotment of 320 sites. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991 according permission as a special case for allotment of house plots to 320 employees of the Housing Board in an extent of 13 acres with certain conditions. After receipt of the Government Orders, the drawal of the land was conducted and the allotment proceedings were issued to the employees to pay cost of the land and development charges @ Rs.45/- per square yard. As per the request of the NGOs union, the amount was collected in 30 monthly instalments from the salaries of the employees commencing from August, 1991. As per the request of the NGOs union, the amount was collected in 30 monthly instalments from the salaries of the employees commencing from August, 1991. While submitting the proposals to the Government, the extent of allotted area was shown as 13 acres, whereas the total area in the layout measured at 26.541 cents including the area covered by the roads, parks, playgrounds etc., therefore, the matter was placed before the Board for consideration for allotment of 26.541 acres. The Board in its 423rd meeting held on 29-06-1992 passed a Resolution to approach the Government for necessary amendment to the G.O. by substituting 26.541 acres in the place of 13 acres. The Government, through its letter, dated 28-06-1994 informed that the matter need not come to the Government. The Vice Chairman of the Housing Board may take necessary action to decide at his level as the proposed land is under the control of the Board. After receipt of the orders from the Government, the matter was placed before the Board and the Board in its 449th meeting held on 24-08-1995 resolved to amend the G.O. and proposed to collect the amount @ 116/- per square yard towards cost of the land including development charges. But, the Resolution was not communicated to the employees and the difference of amount was not collected since the lay out was under the process of approval. When the minutes of the Board are communicated, the Principal Secretary to the Housing Board directed the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner not to register the plots in Phase-IV in favour of the Housing Board employees in terms of the Board Resolution till the Government issued clarification and takes a clear decision on the issue. The Government in D.O. letter informed the Vice Chairman that the plots at Kukatpally were sold at Rs.80/- per square yard in the year 1983-84 and it was decided by the Board to sell the land at Rs.116/- per square yard in 2001 when the land auctioned by the Housing Board is fetching more than Rs.3000/- per square yard, therefore, it is not appropriate to sell away A.P. Housing Board lands at throw away prices. The matter has been examined by the Government and it is tentatively decided to constitute a cabinet sub committee to examine the issue and appropriate orders will be issued after taking a decision in the matter. 6. The matter has been examined by the Government and it is tentatively decided to constitute a cabinet sub committee to examine the issue and appropriate orders will be issued after taking a decision in the matter. 6. The counter filed by the respondents 2 and 3 is also on the similar lines and further pleaded that as the matter is under the active consideration of the Government, the writ petitions are premature and misconceived. 7. By taking into consideration the subsequent developments and filing of writ petitions in 2006 on fresh cause of action, the first respondent filed counter by contending that the cabinet sub committee recommended that the land already allotted to the employees of the Housing Board may be registered @ Rs.204/- per square yard including the development charges as approved by the A.P. Housing Board subject to the condition that if any increase in developmental charge over and above Rs.204/- per square yard arises at the time of execution, it is to be borne by the employees themselves. The Council of Ministers has approved the recommendations of the cabinet sub committee, through the Resolution, dated 01-04-2005 by directing that the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.244, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 28-02-2005 is applicable to the case of Housing Board employees also. After Resolution of the cabinet sub committee, the Government asked the Vice Chairman to submit necessary proposals incorporating the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.244 and the Vice Chairman submitted the same in May, 2005. While the matter stood thus, the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner has submitted a revised proposal in December, 2005 with a request to cancel all the allotments and to provide houses in the proposed Hydernagar scheme for the following reasons: 1. Only 103 people have paid the full amount asked for and 217 people have not paid the full amount asked for; 2. Whereas the G.O. referred to in the cabinet decision relates to payment of market value as per the basic value, what has been collected from these employees are in the nature of only a fraction of market value such as Rs.5/- against market value of Rs.180/-; 3. Several people have bought by way of either concessional allotment of outright purchase flats. 4. Several people have retired in the meantime and died and some have been removed from the service; 5. Several people have bought by way of either concessional allotment of outright purchase flats. 4. Several people have retired in the meantime and died and some have been removed from the service; 5. To give semblance of fairness, we have sent proposals for Administering the scheme. But it appears that it is quite difficult to administer. 8. The Government examined the proposals of the Vice Chairman-cum- Housing Commissioner and placed before the Council of Ministers for approval. The Council of Ministers approved the revised proposal on 01-04-2005 by observing that the revised proposal submitted by the second respondent is laudable and the same has been examined and approved by the Government with reference to various aspects by issuing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006. There is no discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the first respondent requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter by making the averments similar to the counter filed by the first respondent and further pleading that it is important to know that 26 acres of land was never cleared by the Government and it required the approval of the Government before any kind of allotment could be done and the original is modified and hence, the original approval of the Government completely stood nullified in the background of the revised proposal as well as Government order not to register the plots. The Government, after due deliberations, thought it prudent to take it to the cabinet for the withdrawal of the scheme without jeopardising the interests of the employees by giving 20% interest on the amount paid by them and also by giving plots at the cost of construction only without charging for the land cost. On a letter addressed by the Housing Board on 16-10-2000 for payment of the difference amount, only 60 members paid the amount. It is incorrect to state that the second respondent stopped receiving the amount on the ground that the first respondent gave direction not to register the plots in favour of the allottees. The proposal for allotment of lands in favour of the employees is contrary to the provisions of A.P. Housing Board Act and the employees have no right for allotment of any such land from the Board. The proposal for allotment of lands in favour of the employees is contrary to the provisions of A.P. Housing Board Act and the employees have no right for allotment of any such land from the Board. Since the Housing Board took some steps for allotment of plots, it felt that the concerned employees should not be deprived of the enjoyment of the house property and it is with this avowed intention and object that the Housing Board proposed to make alternative arrangements for its employees and decided to charge the construction cost only without charging any cost for the land. The interest of the parties would be better served by implementing G.O.Ms.No.32 and the construction would be taken up on a time bound framework, therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The Government made the Applicants to believe that the it will allot the land and the Housing Board will register the plots in their names by collecting the amount fixed by the Government in 30 instalments and the amount was also recovered by way of instalments, therefore, there was legitimate expectation by the petitioners. The Housing Board as well as the Government made a promise by issuing G.Os and by collecting money towards the cost of the plots, therefore, the doctrine of promissory estoppel will come into operation and the Government is estopped from taking back the promise made by it. Without any notice about the change of the scheme, issuing G.O.Ms.No.32 is against the principles of natural justice and arbitrary which is quite contrary to the promise made by the Government and the earlier orders issued by the Government, therefore, G.O.Ms.No.32 is liable to be set aside and the respondents shall be directed to register the plots in the names of the respective applicants according to their category by collecting the difference of development charges, if any, due from any of the allottees. 11. The learned Advocate General representing the first respondent submitted that the prayer in the writ petition is in the form of specific relief and the writ cannot be maintained and the remedy to the petitioners is in a civil Court, but not in a writ Court. 11. The learned Advocate General representing the first respondent submitted that the prayer in the writ petition is in the form of specific relief and the writ cannot be maintained and the remedy to the petitioners is in a civil Court, but not in a writ Court. He further submitted that the action of the Government as well as the Housing Board is not in consonance with the Act and the Rules, therefore, the question of legality of the action of the respondent does not arise. The Government issued the G.O. on the recommendation made by the Housing Board by taking into consideration the value of the land, the availability of the land, the extra land required for the purpose of allotment of house sites to the applicants etc., therefore, the Government took a policy decision that it would be appropriate if the flats are constructed to the applicants at the actual cost without charging anything for the land on which the plots are going to be constructed and the Government have also decided to refund the amount paid by the respective members with 20% interest per annum or it can also be adjusted towards part of the cost of the plots that are going to be constructed, therefore, in either way, the petitioners were not put to loss and the Government have power to change its policy from time to time to extend the benefit to the employees. He further submitted that since the employees have no statutory right for allotment of house plots, their contention that they are discriminated while allotting plots to the similarly placed employees on the previous occasions, therefore, it amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not tenable. He referred to certain provisions of the Housing Board Act and submitted that the action of the Government is within its domain and there is no illegality in issuing G.O.Ms.No.32, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. In the light of the contentions raised by both parties, the following are the point for consideration by this Court: 1. Whether the prayer in the writ petition is in the form of specific relief and whether the writ petition is not maintainable under law? 2. Whether the action of the respondents in changing the scheme for allotment of house sites amounts to promissory estoppel? Whether the prayer in the writ petition is in the form of specific relief and whether the writ petition is not maintainable under law? 2. Whether the action of the respondents in changing the scheme for allotment of house sites amounts to promissory estoppel? and whether the action of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside? 3. Whether the Government is estopped from changing its scheme after making the applicants to believe that they get the lands in view of the completion of the formalities except the registration of the land?; POINT NOS.1 TO 3: 13. It is an undisputed fact that on the request of A.P. Housing Board, the Government have accorded permission for allotment of 115 MIG, 181 LIG and 24 EWS plots to 320 employees of the A.P. Housing Board vide G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991 as a special case. It is also an undisputed fact that the Housing Commissioner, Hyderabad has submitted a proposal to the Government to permit the Board for registration of 320 plots in Phase-IV of Kukatpally to its employees at the rate of Rs.204/- per square yard which includes development charges and land rate @ Rs.188/- and Rs.16/- respectively subject to the condition that the over and above the development charges, if any, to be borne by the employees themselves, if worked out at a later date at the time of execution of the development work. It is also an undisputed fact that a cabinet sub committee was constituted by the Government to examine the issue and to submit a report. The Cabinet sub committee recommended that the land already allotted to the employees may be registered @ Rs.204/- per square yard including developmental charges as approved by the Housing Board subject to the payment of development charges in case of increase. The Council of Ministers approved the report of the sub committee on 01-04-2005 for registration of 320 plots allotted to the employees of A.P. Housing Board subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.244, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 28-02-2005. It is also an undisputed fact that after the cabinet Resolution, the Government have asked the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, to submit necessary proposals incorporating the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.244, dated 28-02-2005 and the same was submitted by the Housing Commissioner in May, 2005. It is also an undisputed fact that after the cabinet Resolution, the Government have asked the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, to submit necessary proposals incorporating the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.244, dated 28-02-2005 and the same was submitted by the Housing Commissioner in May, 2005. It is also an undisputed fact that after receipt of the orders of the Government, the process of drawal of the lots, collection of land cost and development cost was also done. The Government, through the Resolution, dated 24-08-1995 have approved the allotment of 320 plots to A.P. Housing Board Employees vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991 and authorized the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner to take action to decide the extent of land required. The matter was brought to the notice of the Board for consideration and the matter was discussed, and the Board resolved to allot 26.541 acres of land under phase-IV to A.P. Housing Board Employees (13.66 acres plotted area + 12.881 acres for roads, open space and community purpose) @ 116/- per square yard towards development. The Housing Board through the Resolution in its 463rd meeting, dated 29-11- 2000 resolved to register the plots in favour of the employees @ 116/- per square yard after full payment of difference of cost provided that the allottee to give an undertaking agreeing for construction of houses by the Board. While the matter stood thus, the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board have submitted the revised proposal during December, 2005 with request to cancel all the allotments and to provide houses at concessional rate without charging for the land value in the proposed Hydernagar scheme for the following reasons: 1. Only 103 people have paid the full amount asked for and 217 people have not paid the full amount asked for; 2. Whereas the G.O. referred to in the cabinet decision relates the payment of market value as per the basic value, what has been collected from these employees are in the nature of only a fraction of market value such as Rs.5/- against market value of Rs.180/-; 3. Several people have bought by way of either concessional allotment of outright purchase flats. 4. Several people have retired in the meantime and dead and some have been removed from the service; 5. To give semblance of fairness, we have sent proposals for administering the scheme. Several people have bought by way of either concessional allotment of outright purchase flats. 4. Several people have retired in the meantime and dead and some have been removed from the service; 5. To give semblance of fairness, we have sent proposals for administering the scheme. But it appears that it is quite difficult to administer. 14. He also recommended that the charges should be based on the cost of construction only to the 103 people and also to adjust their contribution with interest @ 20% per annum from the time of payment of the money. Similar offer was also recommended to give to others on the same price. The revised proposal was placed before the Council of Ministers for approval and the Council of Ministers have approved the revised proposal through the Resolution, dated 08-09-2006 with modification to the earlier Resolution No.110 of 2005, dated 01- 04-2005. The Government felt that the revised proposal submitted by the second respondent is a laudable one and the same has been examined by the Government with reference to various aspects and approved the same by issuing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006. In G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991, it was mentioned by the Government that after considering the request of the Housing Board to allot plots to 320 employees on par with the allotment made to the employees previously, accorded permission for allotment of plots to 320 employees of the Housing Board in an extent of 13 acres on southern side of Phase-IV situated at Kukatpally, Hyderabad @ 45/- per square yard subject to the condition that no Board employee shall sell away or exchange or mortgage the plot and that the plot with structure, if any, will be resumed by the Government at any time for any violation of the Rules or the order of allotment. On 04-06-1991, the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner issued allotment letter to the employees by imposing four conditions, which read as follows: 1. He/She should pay the cost at Rs.45/- per square yard including the cost of land and development charges in lump sum within 30 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter. 2. He/She should bear the charges incidental to the conveyance of ownership of the plot, such as stamp duty, registration charges, plan charges and conveyance charges etc. 3. He/She should pay the cost at Rs.45/- per square yard including the cost of land and development charges in lump sum within 30 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter. 2. He/She should bear the charges incidental to the conveyance of ownership of the plot, such as stamp duty, registration charges, plan charges and conveyance charges etc. 3. He/She should not part with, either whole or part of the plot, mortgage, sell or otherwise dispose off the plot, without the prior permission of the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board. 4. If He/She wants to dispose off the plot, it should be sold to the A.P. Housing Board at the cost at which it was sold to him/her. 15. On 16-12-2000, a letter was issued by the Executive Engineer, Housing, requesting for payment of difference of the cost of plots allotted to the respective employees and some of the members were also given plot numbers in respect of which they have to pay the difference of money. 16. The contention of the Housing Board is that some of the Applicants failed to pay additional cost of the plot, therefore, the request for registration of plots in their favour cannot be entertained. A show cause notice is also not necessary as the allotment is not traceable either to any statutory right or any vested right upon the applicants. The petitioners have no vested right, therefore, they are not entitled for allotment of any plots. It was further contended by the Housing Board that the Housing Board felt that the needs of more number of people can be met by making provision for construction of flats rather than plots. But, there is no proposal to sell the plots to third parties and the Housing Board will utilize the land for the purpose of construction of flats. 17. It is further contended that 26.54 acres was never cleared by the Government. It is also contended by the Housing Board that G.O.Ms.No.2 cannot be applied to the A.P. Housing Board Employees for the simple reason that unlike the Government employees allotment Rules, here: 1. The employees are seeking allotment at below the basic value and which mandatory provision for allotment to the Government employees, 2. The allottees/employees will have to produce 'No House Certificate' in the twin cities etc. The employees are seeking allotment at below the basic value and which mandatory provision for allotment to the Government employees, 2. The allottees/employees will have to produce 'No House Certificate' in the twin cities etc. It is pertinent to point out here that from out of the above employees/allottees, many had taken House Building Loans and purchased houses in the twin cities. About 50% people are working in the districts and they never worked in Hyderabad. And they in turn have got houses in their local area on their own or because they got an allotment of A.P. Housing Board Houses, 3. Government allotment rules are limited to employees, who are regular employees and in this particular case, 46 are work-charged staff, but later on were removed from the jobs, 5 of employees have resigned, 23 of the employees expired, 31 employees either retired or taken VRS; and the employees in the service were only 214. 18. The Housing Board issued a Circular No.19407, dated 09-09-1991 for payment of cost of development charges in 30 equal instalments instructing the Regional Housing Engineers and disbursement officers to deduct monthly instalments from the work charged employees and to send the amount by D.D. to the Regional Housing Engineer, Western Division, A.P. Housing Board. When the A.P. Housing Board addressed a letter, dated 04-08-1992 for notification of orders for allotment of plots to the A.P. Housing Board employees, the Government gave a reply, which reads as follows: "With reference to your letter cited, I am to state that the matter need not come to Government. You may take necessary action to decide at your level as the proposed land will be under the control of the Board, as discussed by the Minister for Housing with you on 27.5.94." On the basis of the said letter, the Housing Board resolved to allot 26.541 acres of land for allotment of house sites and subsequent to that Resolution, the Housing Board addressed a letter to the Government on 11-12-1995 for favour of information about the allotment of 26.541 acres to the employees for allotment of plots. 19. 19. The first respondent contended that the approval of the Government was given only for 13 acres and the approval of the Government has not been obtained for the remaining land and what is obtained later is from the Deputy Secretary referring to discussion with the Ministers and not a Government approval. Though the Government contended that the very proposal for allotment would be contrary to the spirit of the provision of A.P. Housing Board Act, ever since certain steps were already taken in respect of allotment of plots, the Housing Board felt that the concerned employees should not be deprived of the enjoyment of the house property. It is the contention of the Housing Board that the Board felt that had the land been registered in favour of the applicants, the Board would be looser of property worth about 500 crores by giving benefit to limited group of people. G.O.Ms.No.32 would benefit a larger number of people and in the context of changing scenario, it would be more appropriate to go for multi storied housing complex rather than individual houses which would benefit more number of needy people. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of their contentions: In Aeronautics Employees Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. The Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others1 this High Court while considering the scope of doctrine of promissory estoppel held as follows: "The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies also against the Government. It is no defence for the Government to say that because of executive necessity, it need not keep up its promise. Where the State Govt. promised assignment of land for house sites for the employees of a Central Govt. undertaking when vast tracts of land was readily available for construction purposes and, at the instance of the State Govt., the employees in question formed themselves into a Co-operative society, resiling from the promise towards the last stage after a long lapse of about eight years, on the ground that its own employees should be given preference, was unreasonable. Apart from the principle of promissory estoppel, in the interests of good Government the commitment made to the management of the undertaking should be honoured. Apart from the principle of promissory estoppel, in the interests of good Government the commitment made to the management of the undertaking should be honoured. Had the State Government told the management of the undertaking in the beginning itself when vast tracts of land was readily available for construction purposes, the management would have explored alternative arrangements to provide housing accommodation to their employees. Because of the promise made by the State Government, the management, thinking that the promise would be acted upon, did not explore other possibilities. It is the promise of the government that had altered the position of the society. The employees of any Central Government public sector undertaking, after having been promised assignment of land, should not be subjected to disappointment on the ground of the policy of the Government that the State Government employees should be given preference in the matter of assignment of house sites. Apart from the legality of the Governmental action, its legitimacy also is involved in a situation of the present type. " In M.P.Sugar Mills Vs. State of U.P.2, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. It is elementary that in a republic governed by the rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law. Every one is subject to the law as fully and completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned, the former is equally bound as the latter. The Government cannot claim to be immune from the applicability of the rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made by it on the ground that such promise may fetter its future executive action. The Government cannot claim to be immune from the applicability of the rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made by it on the ground that such promise may fetter its future executive action. If the Government does not want its freedom of executive action to be hampered or restricted, the Government need not make a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and the promisee would alter his position relying upon it. But if the Government makes such a promise and the promisee acts in reliance upon it and alters his position, there is no reason why the Government should not be compelled to make good such promise like any other private individual." In F.C.I. Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries3, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the aspect of the legitimate expectation, held as follows: "Though the first part of the submission of the respondent is correct but the proposition enunciated by the High Court which forms the sole basis of its decision is too wide to be acceptable and has to be limited in the manner indicated hereafter. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure, which is 'fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself by a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent." In Council of Civil Service Unions V. Minister for the Civil Service4, the House of Lords indicated the extent to which the legitimate expectation interfaces with exercise of discretionary power. The impugned action was upheld as reasonable, made on due consideration of all relevant factors including the legitimate expectation of the applicant, wherein the considerations of national security were found to outweigh that which otherwise would have been the reasonable expectation of the applicant. Lord Scarman pointed out that "the controlling factor in determining whether the exercise of prerogative power is subject to judicial review is not its source but its subject matter". Again in Preston, in re5 it was stated by Lord Scarman that "the principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review" and "unfairness in the purported exercise of a power can be such that it is an abuse or excess of power". These decisions of the House of Lords give a similar indication of the significance of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. These decisions of the House of Lords give a similar indication of the significance of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. In Shanti Vijay and Co. Vs. Princess Fatima Fouzia6, it is held that court should interfere where discretionary power is not exercised reasonable and in good faith. In Union of India Vs. International Trading Co.7, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Though there can be quarrel with the proposition that renewal of a permit carries with it a valuable right, but undisputedly, for outweighing reasons of public interest, renewal can be refused. If at the time when the matter is taken up for considering whether renewal is to be granted, there is a change in policy it cannot be said that the right is defeated by introduction of a policy. In such an event, the question of applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel loses significance. It has not been disputed that in fact the policy decision exists. Legitimacy of the policy decision has not been questioned by the respondents. Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot come in the way of public interest, which has to prevail over private interest. The case at hand shows that a conscious policy decision had been taken and there was no statutory compulsion to act to the contrary. In that context, it cannot be said that the respondents have acquired any right for renewal. The High Court was not justified in observing that the policy decision was contrary to the statute and for that reason direction for consideration of the application for renewal was necessary. Had the High Court not recorded any finding on the merits of respective stands, direction for consideration in accordance with law would have been proper and there would not have been any difficulty in accepting the plea of the counsel for the respondents. But having practically foreclosed any consideration by the findings recorded, consideration of the application would have been a mere formality and grant of renewal would have been the inevitable result, though it may be against the policy decision. That renders the High Court judgment indefensible. A claim based on merely legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. For legal purposes, expectation is not the same as anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law. That renders the High Court judgment indefensible. A claim based on merely legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. For legal purposes, expectation is not the same as anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law. Even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission, that may render such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty-two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the respondents. Two wrongs do not make a right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case; direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repletion of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to mattes of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when no trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labeled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities and adopt trade policies. The ultimate test is whether on the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decision comes out unscathed. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country." 21. The circumstances of the present case indicate that the respondents made up their mind to give plots to the petitioners. Rates were also revised from time to time. Plots were also identified to the applicants. 103 people admittedly paid the full amount as required by the Housing Board. Just before the registration of the sale deeds, it struck to the respondents that they cannot lose the valuable land for the sake of employees. There was hike in prices due to delay in registering the plots in favour of the applicants. It is nothing but normal that prices continue to increase and when delay is caused in taking decision, it pricks the mind of the Officers that they were giving away the lands for paltry amount, when the prevailing rates are very high. But the Officers failed to take note of the fact that the Government fixed the rate by taking into consideration the then prevailing rates as on the date of taking decision. If the decision is implemented immediately, the properties would have been registered in the names of the respective applicants without the problem of comparing the rates prevailing then and the present. On account of delay in decision making, the applicants shall not be made to suffer, at least those who scrupulously followed the instructions of the respondents and parted with the money as required by the respondents. 22. The first G.O. was issued on 10-01-1991. After 16 years, the impugned G.O. has been issued after flowing of much water from the date of earlier G.O. For the administrative laches or delays, the applicants cannot be made to suffer. When they fulfilled all the conditions, they legitimately expect that they would get the benefit. 22. The first G.O. was issued on 10-01-1991. After 16 years, the impugned G.O. has been issued after flowing of much water from the date of earlier G.O. For the administrative laches or delays, the applicants cannot be made to suffer. When they fulfilled all the conditions, they legitimately expect that they would get the benefit. Had they been given the land by executing the registered sale deeds, they would have made constructions long ago and would have comfortably lived in those houses. The impugned G.O. was issued only on the ground that on account of escalation of prices, it is not desirable to part with the land to the employees who have no statutory right for allotment of the plots. But the orders issued by the respondents from time to time indicate that there was a practice of Housing Board allotting plots to its employees previously. The Board favourably considered the representation of a new set of employees for similar benefit of allotment of lands. Had the Board felt that there is no statutory right, it would have outright rejected the application by saying that the Board is not inclined to recommend to the Government for allotment of house sites to the employees. Having recommended favourably, having obtained the G.O. from the Government for allotment of the lands, having fixed the rate and having collected the amount by deducting the instalments from the salary of the respective applicants, it is not just and proper on the part of the respondents to go back by taking an excuse that the applicants have no right under the statute for allotment of the land. 23. The learned Advocate General submitted that the prayer in these writ petitions is in the form of specific relief, therefore, it is for the petitioners to approach the civil Court for appropriate remedy and the writ petitions cannot be maintained. The petitioners filed the writ petitions to hold that G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 issued by the Government is liable to be cancelled and consequently they are entitled to get the plots registered in their names in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991. The petitioners filed the writ petitions to hold that G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 issued by the Government is liable to be cancelled and consequently they are entitled to get the plots registered in their names in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991. The G.O. was questioned on the ground of arbitrariness on the part of the Government as it was issued solely on the ground that the land will fetch more value if it is sold in the open market, unmindful of the sequence of events that went to the extent of registration of plots in favour of the petitioners after complying all the formalities including recovery of sale consideration as fixed by the Government etc. Since the Board took a decision to allot plots to its employees, after obtaining permission from the Government to sell the land as per the price fixed by the Government, and when the G.O. was issued authorizing the Board to execute the sale deeds, nothing remained to be in force by way of specific performance, therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Advocate General that the relief sought for is in the form of specific relief. 24. Regarding the point whether the action of the respondents in changing the scheme for allotment of house sites amounts to promissory estoppel, there is an elaborate discussion in this Judgment how the Board expressed its intention for allotment of house sites, how the Government approved the proposals made by the Housing Board and how the respondents made the petitioners to believe that the sale deeds will be registered by allotting plot numbers and by addressing letters to pay the amounts and deducting the sale consideration from the salaries of the respective petitioners making them to have a legitimate expectation that the respondents have made all arrangements to register the sale deeds by clearing all the obstacles. Only on the basis of an idea crept in the mind of one official, the respondents have gone to the extent of giving go by to the scheme on the sole ground that there will be loss to the Government if the sites are allotted to the respective petitioners. Only on the basis of an idea crept in the mind of one official, the respondents have gone to the extent of giving go by to the scheme on the sole ground that there will be loss to the Government if the sites are allotted to the respective petitioners. The respondents, having made all arrangements for registration of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, are estopped from saying that there is no statutory right to the petitioners and that the Government will be put to loss and the land can be utilized for some other purpose. After considering the above aspects, this Court came to a conclusion that G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 is arbitrary to the extent of 103 Applicants, who have paid the full amount as required by the respondents. 25. After going through the entire material, I am of the considered view that G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 12-09-2006 is arbitrary to the extent of about 103 applicants, who have paid the full amount as required by the respondents, therefore, I am inclined to quash the G.O. in part to the extent of the eligible applicants, who have paid the entire amount as required by the respondents and the rest of the G.O. is held valid in respect of the applicants, who are about 217 in number, who failed to pay the full amount as prescribed by the respondents. 26. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed in part by quashing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 to the extent of cancellation of allotment of plots in respect of the applicants, who paid the full amount as required by the respondents. The respondents are directed to register the plots in favour of the petitioners, who have paid the entire amount as prescribed by the respondents in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991 and deliver possession of the respective plots or such other plots, which are situated contiguously by collecting such development and other charges as is required by the respondents on account of the amount spent for the development of the land. The option is left to the Government to continue the G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 12-09-2006 in force in respect of other applicants, who paid the amounts in part or failed to pay any amount, who are said to be 217 in number, by leaving the option to such petitioners either to go for purchase of the flots as mentioned in the G.O. or take the refund of the respective amounts with interest as mentioned in the impugned G.O. No order as to costs. ?1 AIR 1990 AP 331 2 AIR 1979 SC 621 3 (1993) 1 SCC 71 4 (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL) 5 (1985) 2 All ER 327 6 (1979) 4 SCC 602 7 (2003) 5 SCC 437