ASHOK K BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a writ petition filed in the year 1992. The petitioner was an allottee of a house in category 'a' of one of the Karnataka housing boards' schemes. He had paid an initial amount of Rs. 22,500/- on 24-9-1988. The petitioner was required to pay the subsequent instalment of Rs. 67,500/- by 31-12-1988. This was extended twice to 31-3-1989 and 30-6-19s9. Inspite of this, the instalment was not paid. Simultaneously, the second instalment due on 30-4-1989 was extend by a period of six months to 31-10- 1989, but the petitioner failed to pay it. As far as the third instalment of Rs. 56,250/- were concerned, which was due on 30-8-1989, the petitioner was granted two extensions up to 30-5-1990 and then up to 31-12-1990 inspite of which he failed to pay these instalments. In that circumstances, therefore, apart from the initial payment of Rs. 22,500/-, the petitioner had paid none of the instalments due from him despite the grant of several extensions. The housing board, therefore, cancelled the allocation on 22-1-1992. The house in question was thereafter allotted to the petitioner in W.P. No. 27521 of 1993.

(2.) in the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed the above petition before this court wherein he has contended that the intimation of cancellation of allotment was sent to the wrong address. He has also contended that he ought to have been heard before his allotment was cancelled. On this contention, he obtained an Order restraining the housing board from handing over possession of the house to the petitioner in W.P. No. 27521 of 1993.

(3.) Rule 4 of the regulations is unambiguous. It specifies that in the event of the allottee failing to make the payments within the prescribed period which includes any extensions that may be granted, that the allotment shall be deemed to be cancelled. This provision does not contemplate any intimation to the allottee nor does it contemplate any so called show cause notice or hearing before the allotment is cancelled. If the housing board were to issue any reminders or call letters, it is purely a matter of courtesy. It needs to be recorded that the housing board premises are specially put up for the purpose of being sold to genuine buyers and that it is the total obligation on the part of the allottee to conform to the requirements of the terms of allotment, namely to make the payments within the prescribed periods of time. It is not open to the allottee to contend that he should be intimated and in the event of failure to pay within the prescribed time period, he is already put on notice that the allotment will stand cancelled and that 25% of the initial contribution will be forfeited. In this background, there can be no question of the petitioner mailing a grievance that the housing board ought to have issued a show cause notice for that matter that he should have been intimated of the allotment. Neither of these are necessary in law. The action of the housing board in the circumstances of the case was more than fully justified. All that the petitioner would be entitled to under the Rule is a 75% refund of his initial contribution.