M S SETHI Vs. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3773/2007.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC), the respondent herein, floated a scheme in September, 2003 for allotment of flats to the successful allottees of plots under relocation scheme for the employees known as ,,Rajiv Gandhi Housing Project Self Finance Cost Effective Workers Housing Scheme (for short ,,the Scheme). The applications were invited from both bona fide industrial workers and industrial owners. The respondent had constructed 3164 flats/houses (1500 type-I and 1664 type-II) under the said project. The respondent received 1036 applications out of which 931 applicants were found to be eligible and were allotted one unit each per eligible applicant. As the response was poor and 2233 flats had remained unallotted, applications were again invited in the second phase in September, 2004 as per the brochure. As set forth, the appellant submitted an application for allotment of 5 flats and deposited Rs.1 lakh on 28 th September, 2004 with the respondent along with other requisite documents, as stipulated in the brochure. In the second phase, 2040 applications were received and at the first instance one flat was allotted to each worker found eligible and the industrial plot allottees of general category. In this manner, 1867 allotments were effected. The appellant was allotted one flat under the said Scheme on 8th March, 2006. In the order of allotment, the installment, total amount payable and due date of payment of installment were stipulated. After granting allotment of one flat, no further allotment of flats were made and the security amount was not refunded. When the appellant visited the office of the respondent, the concerned authorities intimated him that his application in respect of other four flats was pending consideration. It may be noted here that 337 flats remained unallotted and 700 applications were received for allotment of more than one flat. It was not possible to allot these 337 flats to 700 applicants. As per the case of the respondent a policy decision was taken not to allot more than one flat to these 700 applicants. These 337 flats were included in the second Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme launched by the respondent in 2007. This time applications were invited from industrial workers in any industrial complex of Delhi and employees of group C and D including temporary/daily wages/work charge in any of the public sector undertakings or under Government of NCT of Delhi. Owners of industrial plots were not eligible. The respondent received 11,000 applications under the second Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme launched in 2007. As per this scheme only one flat could be allotted to each eligible applicant.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge appreciating the rivalized submissions raised at the Bar came to hold that the Scheme was essentially to provide houses to industrial workers and, therefore, an allottee of industrial plot could not, as a matter of right, demand that he should be allotted five flats he had applied for. THE learned Single Judge further opined that the classification between allottee of an industrial plots and industrial workers for the purpose of allotment of flats under the Scheme is based on intelligible differentia and, therefore, not arbitrary. THE policy decision taken to allot an applicant only one flat was applied uniformly and, therefore, cannot be regarded as arbitrary exercise of power. In this background, he declined to issue mandamus to the respondent to allot four more flats.