SOHAN LAL RAGHU JI BANKAR Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner initially had filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.4.2016 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent Board and thereafter had amended the petition by incorporating the prayer, seeking declaration that the action of the respondent Board in executing the sale deed dated 14.2.2018 in favour of one Bharatbhai Prahladbhai Thakor in relation to the subject flat No.LIG-2/M/1101 Transport Node in Mukhyamantri Gruh Awas Yojna, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the said Scheme") was in breach of the order dated 30.6.2016 passed by the Court in the present petition.

(2.) At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner has already filed the contempt proceedings against the concerned officers of the respondent Board, being Misc. Civil Application No.613 of 2018, alleging breach of the interim order passed in this petition. The said proceedings being separate and independent proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, pending before the Division Bench, this Court is not required to go into the said issue as to whether the respondent Board had committed any breach of the said interim order dated 30.6.2016 as per the amendment incorporated in the petition.

(3.) So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it appears that the petitioner claiming to be the member of scheduled tribe had applied for the allotment of flat under the said Scheme. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said application, the petitioner was informed vide communication dated 24.9.2015 (Annexure-A) that he was provisionally allotted the said flat under the category of Scheduled Tribe and that he should produce the requisite documents within 15 days thereof. It was also mentioned therein that if the documents submitted by the petitioner were found to be incorrect or not genuine, his application shall be treated as cancelled and the deposit, if any, shall stand forfeited. The petitioner thereafter appears to have submitted the documents, as also his affidavit dated 18th October, 2015 (Annexure-B colly), stating inter alia that he had mistakenly filled up the form showing himself as the member of Scheduled Tribe, as he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and not the Schedule Tribe. The respondent thereafter sent the impugned communication dated 22.4.2016, informing the petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee had scrutinised the documents produced by the petitioner, and found certain defects therein, and therefore, the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the flat in question was cancelled. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the said order by way of the present petition.