RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. ANAND MOHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we have formed an opinion that the matter is required to be re -considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 (CWP No. 308/2005). For the order proposed to be passed in this appeal, dilatation on all the factual and legal aspects does not appear necessary; and only a brief reference to the background aspects of the matter would suffice.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition leading to this appeal while challenging the order dt. 20.08.2004 (Annex. 10) whereby the allotment of a commercial plot bearing number CC -4 in Chopasni Housing Board Scheme, Jodhpur was ordered to be cancelled for his failure to deposit the requisite amount within the stipulated time. The contentions of the petitioner had been that there were encroachments on and around the plot in question; and an electric pole was also creating obstruction and thus, he made several representations in that regard but of no avail. The stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge had been that the writ petitioner was required to deposit the balance amount after the initial deposit within two months of the issuance of the allotment order failing which, the allotment was liable to be cancelled without further notice; and, as the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount within the specified time and even after reminders, the allotment was rightly ordered to be cancelled.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that while passing the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the submissions sought to be made by the appellants and even the amount as stated in the order impugned is not correct. In any case, according to the learned counsel, the writ -petitioner, having failed to comply with the requirements of the allotment order, could not have been granted indulgence by the writ Court without examining all other relevant aspects of the matter including those of price escalation. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 frankly submitted that though in the order impugned, all the contentious issues have not been adjudicated upon but, according to the learned counsel, on the substance of the matter, the order remains just and proper because there was no likelihood of any revenue loss to the appellant Housing Board; and delay, whatever, had essentially been for the faults and short -comings on the part of the appellant Housing Board.