INDIRA Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner claims to be a destitute women. According to her, the 6th Respondent is liable to classify her in the BPL category and on that basis she is entitled to get allotted a flat under the Innovative Housing Scheme of the Kerala State Housing Board at Kakkanad. It is stated that despite this, in Ext.P4 ration card, the 6th Respondent has classified her under the APL category and therefore her legitimate rights are denied.

(2.) According to the Respondents 1 and 2, on whose behalf a statement has been filed in this case, 36 units were available for allotment and all the units are already allotted to persons mentioned in Ext.R2(b). It is stated that 18 persons are included in the waiting list mentioned in Ext.R2 (a). According to Respondents 1 and 2, if the 6th Respondent corrects the categorisation of the Petitioner and include her in the BPL category, to which alone residential unit can be allotted, and if the relevant records are produced, they are willing to consider the eligibility of the Petitioner and include her in the waiting list for allotment.

(3.) Admittedly only those, who belong to BPL category are eligible for allotment under the Innovative Housing Scheme referred above. As it stands today, the Petitioner is included in APL category and hence is ineligible. The categorisation and the re-categorisation is a matter for the 6th Respondent. It is therefore that, the Petitioner has made Ext.P5 application before the 6th Respondent for correcting Ext.P4 by re-categorising her in the BPL category and it is for the 6th Respondent to consider Ext.P5 along with such other documents Petitioner may produce and categorise her in the BPL category.