LAXMI Vs. K K NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, in all 12 in number, have filed this Special Civil Application before this Court and prayed for following reliefs :

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham made out a scheme for allotment of plots to its employees. As per the allotment scheme, the petitioners applied for allotment of plots in the year 1989 after completing all necessary formalities. The grievance of the petitioners in this vSpecial Civil Application is that the Kandla Port Trust without inviting or taking objections from the affected persons, the respondents revised the scheme earlier formulated and started allotment of plots in accordance with the revised scheme. In the submission of the petitioners, the persons to whom now allotments are made as per revised scheme are ineligible persons. From the Circular of the Kandla Port Trust, I find that the Government has accorded its approval for allotment of plots to 770 K.P.T. employees in NU4. The matter for consideration of the applications for allotment of plots by drawing of lots was fixed on 3-1-1999 and the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Gandhidham (Kutch). Copy of the plaint is annexed at Annexure "E" to this petition. In the said suit the petitioners prayed for following reliefs :

(3.) In the suit aforesaid, the Court has granted ad interim injunction. On 17-2-1999 the plaintiffs filed purshis for withdrawal of the same and the Court has permitted the withdrawal of the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the scheme has been framed for allotment of plots and applications are invited then respondents have no authority to deviate from it. Lastly, it is contended that even if the respondent No. 2 wants to revise the earlier scheme for allotment of plots, it could have been done only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has next been contended by the learned Counsel for petitioners that the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the list of candidates to be considered for allotment of plots is illegal.