PARMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned sub clauses (iii) and (iv) of Clause III (eligibility clause) of the Housing Scheme dated 14.1.2008 (Annexure P.1) floated by respondent No. 2-Chandigarh Housing Board and further to quash clause 5 of the impugned tripartite agreement executed during the month of October 2005 (Annexure P.4) being illegal, against the regulations and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has further prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to accept and consider his application for allotment of dwelling unit under the Housing Scheme dated 14.1.2008 (Annexure P.1).

(2.) BROADLY , the facts are that the Chandigarh Housing Board, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") notified a housing scheme on 14.1.2008 namely "Self Financing Housing Scheme-2008 on leasehold basis for 90 years for employees of Chandigarh" (hereinafter referred to as "SFH Scheme 2008"). In pursuance thereof, applications were invited from eligible Group A, B, C and D employees of Chandigarh Administration or its Board/Corporation or Punjab and Haryana High Court or on deputation with Chandigarh Administration on the dates of the opening of the scheme i.e 14.1.2008. The SFH Scheme 2008 comprised of four storey flats with different number of bed-rooms to be constructed in Sectors 52 and 56, Chandigarh or any other place earmarked by Chandigarh Administration. Details of accommodation and approximately area is given in the scheme. Clause III of the scheme prescribes the eligibility, which is as under :

(3.) IN the writ petition, petitioner has stated that he had sold the earlier dwelling unit allotted to him on payment of Rs. 40,000/- transfer fee as it was only a two room dwelling unit. It is further alleged that in the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations 1979"), there is no provision to debar a person like the petitioner. However, by incorporating the words "ever" in the impugned sub clause (iii) of Clause III, the respondent- Board has travelled beyond the provisions of Regulations 6(1) of Regulation 1979, which is impermissible in law. It is further averred that as per Regulations 2 (15) of the Regulation 1979, eligible persons, means a person, who is entitled to the purchase of property, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and these Regulations 2 (26) defines 'scheme' which means a scheme prepared by the Board for the construction of a group of houses for dwelling purposes.