PANKIL RAJNIKANT PATEL Vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What has been prayed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to call for the record and proceedings of the Board and the Committee in particular the minutes of the Committees meeting dated 23 to declare that the Committee had no power to reject the petitioners application orally on the ground of ineligibility of the petitioner for allotment of tenement under Higher Income Group (for short HIG) scheme of the respondent- Board to direct the respondent-Board to include the name of the petitioner in the final list of allottees of the HIG scheme also known as Vastrapur scheme and to restrain the respondent by its Board or its Committee from publishing and/or preparing the final list of allottees of the said scheme.

(2.) Short facts set-up by the petitioner may briefly be reproduced below : The respondent-Gujarat Housing Board initiated a scheme for HIG persons who according to the respondent-Board must have had an income exceeding Rs.18 0 which was maximum limit for middle income group persons. For the said HIG scheme the respondent acquired the land and started construction in Vastrapur near old Sachivalaya Ahmedabad. The applications were invited by a public advertisement calling upon the persons eligible as HIG persons to make applications on before 31/1/1979 in the prescribed form and the petitioner was one of the applicants as per his application dated 31/1/1979. He deposited Rs.8 500 in favour of the respondent-Board. The value of one unit of tenament was tentatively fixed at Rs.85 0 There were 78 tenements for disposal by the respondent. The Property Allotment Committee was constituted for the purpose of scrutiny and selection of the applications by tracing eligible applicants and by preparing list of such eligible applicants. This exercise was to be done in consonance with the regulations. It is the say of the petitioner that he was ascertained by the Committee to be an eligible applicant. On a reference to regulation no.41 it has been asserted that where the applicants applications received were more than double the number of tenements for allotment the allotment could be decided by draw. In the aforesaid scheme there were applicants much in excess of the required number and therefore the Property Allotment Committee decided to draw the lots of the applications on 18/3/1979 at Jaishankar Sundari Hall. Ultimately the date was extended to 22/4/1979 when the lots were to be drawn in presence of the applicants for which purpose appropriate communications were issued by the respondent. On 4/5/1979 the Board informed the petitioner that he was one of the successful applicants in the lot and his application no. 419 was included in the semi final list and called upon the petitioner to submit further details. While waiting for the result of the semi-final list and consequent allotment of tenements the petitioner received letter dated 18/1/1980 from the respondent-Board stating therein that as the petitioner was minor his application was liable to be rejected. By that letter he was called upon to remain present before the Committee on 23 for the purpose of hearing him. The petitioners representative was given personal hearing by the Committee and he was told that only objection in the allotment was that the petitioners mother also became eligible applicant in the same scheme and that the petitioner was not entitled to the tenement. The oral decision so conveyed by the Committee was not supported by any rule or regulation and was ex-facie arbitrary according to the say of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore served notice dated 27 through his advocate and as the notice remained unreplied the petitioner approached this Court as stated above.

(3.) Before dealing with the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties it would be appropriate to state the say of the respondent-Board. According to the respondent-Board the flats or tenements could not be allotted to minors who are not competent to enter into hire purchase agreement. Besides considering the definition of the family in the regulations more than one person of the family could not apply for allotment or could not be allotted flat or tenement in the scheme. In the present case the petitioners mother did apply and came to be allotted one tenement. It is the say of the respondent that the flats are being constructed for equal distribution and if more than one member of the family is allowed to purchase flats in the scheme the very purpose of the distribution of flats would be frustrated and it would be against the interest of the society. The petitioner has also made application against the prescribed form of the respondent-Board and has no enforceable right. The respondent-Board communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 18/1/1980 that the petitioner did not produce any evidence regarding his income and that he was minor and therefore was not entitled to allotment of tenement in the scheme of respondent-Board. A list of persons having one or the other defects regarding eligibility was prepared and was placed before the Allotment Committee. Against the name of the petitioner the aforesaid defects were shown. The Property Allotment Committee thereupon after considering the objections decided to reject the application at the initial stage and did not place the petitioner in the semi final list. Accordingly the name of the petitioner was not placed in semi-final list. Even after the petitioner gave notice through his advocate on 7 it was again placed before the Property Allotment Committee and in its meeting dated 19 the Property Allotment Committee considered the said legal notice and the contentions taken by the petitioner. The Committee again resolved and decided to confirm its earlier decision. Under such circumstances respondent-Board has claimed dismissal of the petition.