MONA THAKUR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns Rule 58(b)(ii) of the Army Welfare Housing Organization Rules, 1987 as violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently seeks quashing of the list of allottees of the dwelling units constructed by the respondent no.2 Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) at Sector 22 & 23, Dwarka and seeks a mandamus to the respondent no.2 AWHO to allot a dwelling unit in the construction aforesaid to the petitioner, under the category of War Widows. Rule was issued and the respondent no.2 AWHO has filed its counter affidavit to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. THE counsels have been heard.

(2.) THE respondent no.2 AWHO is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the objective inter alia to promote and provide dwelling units to serving and retired Army Personnel and their widows at "No Profit No Loss" basis. Its Board of Management in exercise of the powers vested in it under para 12 of its Regulations framed the Rules aforesaid to regulate the housing schemes, eligibility for allocation of dwelling units, management and maintenance of projects/colonies resolution of disputes etc. Rule 12(b) inter alia makes widows of all ranks who are in receipt of family pension eligible for allocation of dwelling units constructed by the respondent no.2 AWHO. However Rule 58(b)(ii) (supra), vires whereof are challenged in this petition, provides for reservation of up to 3% dwelling units in each type in a particular project or scheme of respondent no.2 AWHO for those widows who apply within two years of the demise of their husband. It is not as if a widow of an Army Personnel after two years of the demise of her husband is not eligible to apply; however in that case she would not be entitled to allocation out of the 3% reservation (supra) and would be entitled to allocation in the unreserved category.

(3.) THE advertisement inviting applications with respect to the Dwarka scheme (supra) provides for allotment thereunder by a random computerized draw, in which the petitioner was not successful. THE petitioner has not made any grievance with respect to the said draw; she claims allotment under the reservation provided in Rule 58(b)(ii) supra.