SHAMIR SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, namely Chandigarh Housing Board, to allot LIG Houses at the cost of Rs. 18,000/ -.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Chandigarh Housing Board issued an advertisement in May, 1976, calling for applications from the residents of Chandigarh for allotment of houses to be constructed by the Chandigarh Housing Board. The petitioner in response to the said advertisement applied for allotment of a house in respect of LIG category. The petitioner also deposited Rs. 1,000/ - along with the application. According to the petitioner, there were 1190 applications received under the LIG category housing scheme and after excluding certain applications there remained only 1126 applications while Chandigarh Housing Board constructed 1178 houses of LIG category but the petitioner was not allotted any house thus constructed. Petitioner was informed by letter of the Housing Board dated September 5, 1980, asking him to give his choice for the type of house at the increased cost of construction out of the type designs mentioned in the said letter. Thus, according to the petitioner, he has not been allotted house out of 1178 houses constructed but he was asked to choose from amongst a different type and designs of houses at an increased cost of construction. According to the petitioner, the Chandigarh Housing Board has allotted the houses to non -applicants and thereby deprived the legitimate applicants who had applied for allotment of the houses in response to the advertisement of the Housing Board issued on May 23, 1976. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been allotted one of the houses out of 1178 constructed prior to the issuance of the letter dated September 5, 1980. It is also mentioned by the petitioner that some of the houses have been allotted by the Housing Board on the grounds of favouritism. Therefore, the allotment of houses to non -applicants is liable to be set aside and a direction may be given to the Housing Board to allot one house to the petitioner in terms of the advertisement and as per his application.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner along with others applied for the LIG Houses in response to the advertisement given by the Chandigarh Housing Board on May 23, 1976. There were 1190 applications for the category of houses under the LIG Scheme. After excluding those ineligible applicants the number of applicants who applied for LIG Houses came to be 1126. There is also no dispute that the Chandigarh Housing Board constructed 1178 houses under LIG Scheme. In the normal course, the petitioner would have been allottee a house but the Chandigarh Administration also included those persons who had registered their names with the Estate Officer for allotment of the houses in 1972. About twenty -one persons have also been allotted under the discretionary quota of the administration. Therefore, the petitioner and some others could not get the allotment of houses in the draw of lots. There is no dispute that the houses have been allotted among the various applicants and also among the persons who applied for the house in 1972 by draw of lots on 2.9.1978, 2.10.1978, 1.11.1978, 2.12.1978, 9.6.1979, 21.11.1979 and 5.3.1980. The petitioner has not challenged the draw of lots which took place on the above dates. The petitioner also has not impleaded those persons who have not applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board on May 23, 1976, as parties to the writ petition. Therefore the allotment in favour of those 1178 persons by draw of lots on the various dates as indicated above, cannot be in -terfered with in this writ petition as no order prejudicial to the allottees can be passed in their absence. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get any relief in this writ petition as necessary parties have not been impleaded. On this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, there is a delay in approaching this Court. Though the last draw of the lots took place on March 15, 1980, the petitioner approached this Court on May 31, 1981 i.e. after more than one year by which time all the allottees had taken possession of the houses. Therefore, the petitioner deprived himself of getting any relief from this Court because of the laches on his part.