SHAKTI SHANKAR VERMA Vs. CHAIRMAN, HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 22nd December, 1993 passed by the State Manager-cum Joint Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the said Board) whereby the allotment of a Medium Income Group House No. 161 to the Petitioner was cancelled.

(2.) The said order which has been impugned in this writ petition has been passed, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as he had sublet the said alloted flat to the Respondent No. 5 who was living in the said flat since May, 1985 on a monthly rental of Rs. 625/- per month. The case of His Petitioner is that the said flat was alloted to him in the year 1981 vide letter dated 11th September, 1981. It was a M.I.G. Flat No. 161 situated at Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 (hereinafter referred to as the said flat). The further case of the Petitioner is that pursuant to the said allotment, hire-purchase agreement was entered between him and the said Board on 16th September, 1981 after making part payment of the agreed sum which was fixed as the price of the said flat. The Petitioner further asserts that as electric and water connection and door fittings were not complete in the said flat the possession of the flat was not handed over to him. In the counter-affidavit filed by the said Board it appears that after registration of the agreement the Petitioner did not take over intentionally the physical possession of the said house from the Board, but he started occupying the said flat on his own after registration of the agreement.

(3.) Averments which have been made in para-6 of the writ petition about several allotments being challenged before this Hon'ble High Court and of the Petitioner being informed from the office of the Housing Board that the allotment given to him has become subjudice and so on, are totally vague and this Court cannot take any judicial notice of those vague assertions. The further case made out by the Petitioner is that because of his allment he went out of India for treatment in Canada and thereafter on his return to India, he found a show-cause notice dated 3rd February, 1993 asking him to show cause why his allotment should not be cancelled as he had inducted Respondent No. 5 by subletting the said flat in question. The Petitioner has annexed the said notice dated 8.2.1993 as Annexure-2 to this petition. The Petitioner further states that he also received a show-cause notice dated 16.5.1990 containing the aforesaid allegation about the subletting of the said flat to Respondent No. 5 and as such, the Petitioner was asked to show-cause why the allotment in his favour should not be cancelled. It appears that certain documents were also annexed with the show-cause notice, but those documents have not been disclosed in the writ petition. However, the Petitioner had given a reply to the said show-cause notice on 29th March, 1993. Thereafter, the Respondents passed the impugned order dated 22nd December, 1993 for cancellation of allotmen in respect of the said flat.