MRITANJAJ DOSAJ Vs. HARYANA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRITANJAJ Dosaj through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the decision of respondents in transferring 39th house built by Haryana Housing Board in self-financed scheme in Sector 21-C, Faridabad to Shri S. P. Johra Respondent No. 4. He also seeks direction to be issued to respondent to allot him the aforesaid house.

(2.) BRIEF facts, on which the relief aforesaid rests, revel that Haryana Housing Board framed a scheme known as "self Financing Scheme" of type I, II and III in Sector 21-C, Faridabad in the year 1986. An advertisement is various newspapers including The Tribune inviting applications on the prescribed form to be accompanied by demand draft of 10% of the tentative cost of the house for its allotment under the said Scheme was given. In accordance with the terns and conditions of the said advertisement, the houses under the Scheme were to be allotted to eligible applicants on the basis of draw of lots, which was to take place within the period specified in the advertisement. Tentative price of Type III houses under the said Scheme was Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The houses were to be ready for allotment within two years from the date of draw of lots. The price of the how was to be paid by the successful buyer in installments, petitioner, in consequence of the advertisement aforesaid, submitted his application oil the prescribed form duly accompanied by demand draft of Rs. 15,000/- and other requisite documents for allotment of house in the aforesaid Scheme (Type III) on July 11, 1986. The application was duly registered for its participation in the draw of fats and provisional registration number for the purpose of draw of lots was given. 38 houses were to be built by respondent-Board at Self Financing Scheme of Type III in Sector 21-C, Faridabad. The draw of tots for the allotment of houses was held in July, 1987. The name of petitioner was at Serial No. 44 in the draw of lots. Inasmuch as only 38 houses were to be built in the Scheme aforesaid, the same were to be allotted to first 38 persons. However, after the names of 38 successful allottees, a waiting list was also prepared on the basis of which petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 6. All the 38 successful allottees, however, did not deposit the money in consequence of the notices sent to them for that purpose, thus, the name of petitioner in the waiting list came at Sr. No. 1. The construction of Type III houses in Sector 21-C, Faridabad was completed in October/november, 1989 and somewhere in the month of February, 1990 petitioner came to know that Housing Board in fact had constructed 39 houses and in as much as he was at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list, be made enquiries on which he was told that after getting approval of the Chairman of the Beard, an intimation would be sent to him. On account of receipt of no reply, he made repeated visits and each time he was assured that he would be asked to deposit the amount for allotment of house in due course of time. However, when such assurance as mentioned above were being extended to petitioner, it came to his notice that Housing Board had decided to allot 39th house to respondent R. S. Johra simply on account of the fact that be had influence in the corridors of the Housing Board. It is this action of the respondent-Board that has been styled to be discriminatory and arbitrary defending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE fact that name of respondent No. 4 was inadvertently excluded when draw of lots was held, has not been controverted. Petitioner has also not been able to prove that respondent No. 4 got the additional house constructed which was ultimately allotted to him, on account of the influence exerted by him. In view of the fact that, respondent No. 4 was preferential applicant as he had opted in his application that he was ready to give the entire amount in lump-sum, it was his claim which required to be protected and it was in this precise direction that the respondent-Board moved. Assuming that respondent No. 4 could not get house when the draw of lots of all the houses was held, then the entire draw has to be held had as, admittedly, the name of respondent No. 4 was inadvertently omitted and, therefore, was not considered when the draw was held. That the court would not like to pass such orders which might result in totally nullifying the allotment of so many people who are not even party to the present writ. That apart, petitioner has not been able to make out a where justice and equity might demand cancellation of allotment of house to respondent No. 4. At the most, it can be said that since the petitioner had been waiting all this while and pursuing the case for allotment of house and, particularly, when he was at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list, respondent-Board might consider his case sympathetically for allotment of another house to him, construction whereof might be in offing in near future.