DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service, enabling housing facilities to its members by transparent allotment. The second respondent HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (for short, 'HEWO') is one such society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The enactment provides for establishment of societies for the promotion of literature, science, fine arts, diffusion of useful knowledge, diffusion of political education and for charitable purposes, as the preamble proclaims. Obviously, HEWO is constituted for a charitable purpose, especially on the principle that charity begins at home, to benefit its own members by allotment of housing facilities. In the present case, we are concerned with the allotment of two super deluxe flats in the apartment complex built by HEWO.

(3.) The appellant herein admitted to the membership of HEWO, is eligible by way of his 14 years of deputation in the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, 'HUDA') which is alternatively referred to in the vernacular as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (for short, 'HSVP'). One of the flats available was conceded to a governing body member, the third respondent based on a decision taken by HEWO in the year 2020 and in the picking of lots conducted for the one remaining flat, the fourth respondent turned out to be successful. The appellant challenged the allotment of the super deluxe flats to the third and fourth respondents, alleging them to be ineligible and accusing HEWO of favoritism, to both its governing body member, the third respondent and his subordinate, the fourth respondent.