R RATHINASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.K.Balasubramanian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. MR.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel takes notice for second and third respondents. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE Writ Petitioner has participated in the auction held for the purchase of house in HIG Group in "Kalapatti Rural Scheme" as per the advertisement issued by the Housing Board on 12.5.1993. He was allotted a house bearing No.A40 at Kalapatty, N.H.S. Phase I, Coimbatore as per the orders of the respondents dated 22.3.1996.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said clause, in effect, compels the participant in the bidding to take up the property, whatever may be the condition and thereafter, the right of questioning about the defective nature has been taken away. Therefore, the said clause is unconscionable and it takes away the legal right and has to be treated as opposed to public policy. He would also submit that even though, the clause in the contract entered between the petitioner and the Housing Board, which is being challenged in the Writ Petition, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 5 SCC 482 (LIC of India and another V. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Others) even in respect of the contractual matters, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available in cases where the action is unreasonable or opposed to public policy and unfair.