C NARENDRA BABU VARMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) petitioners were allottees of a house which was constructed and finally given to them in terms of a scheme sponsored by the government of karnataka-first respondent and the Karnataka housing board, Bangalore-the second respondent. By an allotment order dated 20-1-1984 petitioners were informed under the Provisions of that allotment order estimated value of the building at Rs. 24,600/-. It was also made known that the board itself would provide loan to the extent of Rs. 16,920/-. They were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,160/- after giving deduction to a sum of Rs. 500/-, which they had paid as registration fee. By yet another intimation of allotment allotment dated 8-10-1986 petitioners were informed that the provisional cost as on that date was Rs. 40,367/-, registration fee would be Rs. 500/- and loan admissible would be Rs. 14.920/-. Allottees were required to make first instalment which stood adjusted as the. First instalment which stood adjusted as the amount had already been paid and the second instalment was also required to be paid on or before 16-10-1986. Third instalment was required to be paid before 16-1-1987 in the sum of Rs. 6,237/- and fourth instalment was required to be paid at Rs. 6,236/- on or before 16-4-1987. After giving adjustment to amounts already paid, a sum of Rs. 15,767/- was required to be paid divided into four equal instalments. Petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions imposed in the second intimation of allotment dated 8-10-1986 as per annexures-c. 1 and c. 2 produced by. Them. By anncxure-d. 1 and d. 2, dated 17-11-1988, petitioners were informed that as they did not comply with the directions contained in annuexures-a. 1 and a. 2, allotments made in their favour had since been cancelled and after deducting 25% of the initial amount deposited by them, the balance was decided to be returned to them. They were also warned that if they obtained the refund of the amount deposited by them, they would not be entitled to be considered for fresh allotment. Aggrieved by the same, they have approached this court for relief after having failed to secure any concession from the chairman of the Karnataka housing board. On the representations made by them as per annexures-e. 1 and e. 2 inter alia on the ground that the escalation of price was unexpected and they are poor and therefore, not able to pay the escalated cost of the house allotted and therefore, the cancellation may be set aside and having regard to the poverty of the petitioners respondent 2 be directed to reschedule the payment and withdraw the cancellation of the allotments.

(2.) a similar challenge made by some others was considered by this court in writ petition No. 19150 of 1984 and connected matters. The challenge made to the cancellation was negatived and petitions were held to be devoid of merit. But on humanitarian consideration, a learned single judge of this court directed the housing board to reschedule the payment, if a suitable representation was made by the petitioners therein.

(3.) on the facts of this case, even that relief may not be available to the petitioners for the following reasons: this court issued emergent notice to respondents 2 and 3 and directed the learned high court government pleader to take notice, directing that annexures-d. 1 and d. 2 be stayed subject to each of the petitioners paying or depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with second respondent on or before 30-12-1989. The matter came up for hearing again on 7-2-1990. When this court made enquiries regarding compliance with the earlier directions, petitioners' counsel took time and again when the matter came up today, petitioners' counsel informed the court that they have not complied with the directions of the court. Petitioners have failed to pay the sum of Rs. 5,000/- wiihin the time specified nor have they pleaded for extension of time to make the deposit on account of their poverty. The court cannot but fail to notice that the information that they were required to pay the revised estimate towards cost and amount of instalments as rescheduled by intimation dated 8-10-1986 as at Annexure-C . 1 they did not make any protest between that date and 17-11-1988, i.e. for a period of two years. It is only when annexures-d. 1 and d. 2, the impugned orders have been issued, they have waken up to the reality of the situation. Even their representations to the chairman, Karnataka housing board has been made on 25-1-1989, about four months after the cancellation. Regard having been had to the totality of the sequence of events mere pleading that they are poor cannot be a ground for striking down cancellation at annexures-d. 1 and d. 2. The court always should be aware that implementation of such schemes is for the benefit of the poor. Only a few are the allottees and a large number of them are left out. If those persons have been denied the allotment in preference to the petitioners and the like, then the purpose of the scheme itself would be jeopardised. The other poor people deserving of the benefit of the scheme have been deprived of their opportunity for the allotment. Regard having been had to these facts, I do not think that petitioners deserve any sympathy from this court on account of their poverty. Planned schemes for the welfare of the poor should be implemented in a discipl ined manner and courts should not interfere when discipline is enforced. In the result, petitions are dismissed.