BHUPINDER NAGPAL Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhupinder Nagpal, Senior Sub Editor, Jansatta, Chandigarh has filed the present petition against the Chandigarh Housing Board under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.5.1997 issued by the respondent by which the allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and the entire amount has been forfeited. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:

(2.) The respondent-Board floated a house scheme for 504 MIG Flats for general public, Government employees and accredited journalists in Sector 61, Chandigarh in the year 1995. As per Sub Scheme 'C of the said scheme the accredited journalists who were in occupation of the accommodation allotted by the Chandigarh Administration. As per Sub Scheme 'C' of the said Scheme 12 units were ear-marked for accredited journalists in occupation of government accommodation allotted by the Chandigarh Administration and who intend to vacate the same. The petitioner also applied for the allotment of the house under the Sub Scheme 'C' as according to the petitioner he was working as a Senior Sub Editor in the Jansatta Newspaper and was having government accommodation as he wanted to vacate the same. The petitioner was in occupation of House No. 1333, i.e. the Government accommodation situated in Sector 24, Chandigarh. A Public Interest Litigation came up for hearing before the High Court and it was observed by the Hon'ble Full Bench that allotment of the Government accommodation to the Journalists who are working in the press is illegal. The matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which set aside the order of the Full Bench of the High Court and gave directions to the Board to formulate a policy. In the meanwhile the Board started the proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner and as a result of that petitioner had to vacate the premises in the month of September, 1997. The petitioner was in possession of a government accommodation when the scheme was floated in the year 1995 and he wanted to vacate the same. As against 12 units 30 persons applied in the category of journalists and total four persons including the petitioner were found eligible and the names of the remaining persons were put in the general category. The case set up by the petitioner is that since he is fulfilling the requisite qualifications required for Sub-Scheme 'C', therefore, the allotment which was made to the petitioner could not be cancelled by the respondent authorities. It is also the case of the petitioner that at one point of time there was no objection from the side of the respondent that the petitioner is not a accredited journalist rather the objection of the respondent authority was as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner filed the reply to the notice but the impugned order dated 9.5.1997 has been passed without any jurisdiction. Even otherwise respondent Board is not competent to forfeit the entire amount which was deposited by the petitioner.