BHOJAPPA K ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Overview

(2.) The basic contention of the petitioner is that unguided and arbitrary discretion has been conferred on the State Government to decide which applicants belong to the category of "persons in public life" and therefore, the said provisions are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the category of "persons in public life" has been loosely defined which confers unguided and arbitrary discretion on the Government. He submitted that the vice of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India is attracted. He invited our attention to category B(ii) incorporated in both the Regulations by way of illustration. He submitted that as far as this category is concerned, there are sufficient guidelines. He also invited our attention to other categories mentioned in the table and submitted that except the categories A and C, there are enough guidelines for the other categories in the said Regulations as even a dependent of a deceased Government servant is defined. He submitted that conferring such an unguided discretion by explanation (a) incorporated in both Regulation 4 and Regulation 9A renders the provisions unconstitutional as the procedure for allotment of houses/sites in categories A and C cannot said to be fair and transparent. He, therefore, submits that the relevant provisions are to be declared as unconstitutional.