MANABENDRA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. N.N. Upadhayay, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner is a journalist by profession. The Assam State Housing Board, in short, ASHB, had undertaken certain housing projects in different urban areas in Assam. After the buildings are constructed, these are rented out. Housing projects were also undertaken in Bhetapara and Borsojai in Guwahati. Applications were invited by the ASHB for letting out on rent the residential flats in Bhetapara and Borsojai and the petitioner had also submitted his application. However, the petitioner was not allotted any flat on rent.

(2.) Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not praying for cancellation of flats allotted to different persons on rent in Bhetapara and Borsojai. He will also not be assailing the action of the authorities in not selecting him for the purpose of allotment of a flat on rent. The sole point urged by Mr. Bhattacharyya is that the ASHB does not have any laid down norms for allotment of flats on rent which would make the allotment process transparent. According to him, ASHB must have norms/guidelines in view of the fact that while number of applicants are many, flats available to be given on rent are few. It is also pointed out by him that having a well laid down norms would help in streamlining the process of allotment and eliminate arbitrariness.

(3.) Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the ASHB has submitted that presently no constructions have been undertaken by ASHB for offering it to the public on rent. He also submits that Rule 15 of the ASHB Rules, 1976 is the only norms in the matter of allotment of flats. He has further submitted that before the allotments were made at Bhetapara and Borsojai, some guidelines had been adopted in the meeting of Board of Directors dated 18.07.2007 in the matter of allotment of flats and in this connection, he draws the attention of the Court to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit. He also points out with reference to paragraph 10 of the affidavit that in the matter of new allotment, guidelines reflected in the minutes of the discussion of the Board of Directors held on 18.07.2008 is being followed. It is submitted by him that petitioner having been given a flat on rent earlier, he is not eligible for one more flat.