ASHOK KUMAR PATNI Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the main grievance of the petitioner, who is in employment of a National Bank, is that he was arbitrarily excluded from the draw of lottery of allotment of house/flat drawn on July 26, 1991 by the respondent Board, even though, he was eligible to be included in the said lottery and the applicants, who were lower in the priority, were included in the said drawn of lots.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the real controversy, some necessary facts may be stated in brief : The respondent Board floated a general registration scheme in the year 1982 inviting applications for registration of applicants for allotment of houses/flats constructed by it in various categories in the city of Jaipur. The housing scheme was proposed to be at Sanganer, Jaipur. The petitioner got himself registered under the aforesaid scheme by depositing Rs. 10,000/- by a Bank Draft dated 24. 12. 82. After his registration at Sl. No. 55029 in H. I. G. category the petitioner was allotted priority No. 116 and was given Code No. HIG/82/hp/g/p-116. The registration was for allotment of a house/flat on hire purchase basis. Vide letter No. 3264 dated, 23. 3. 91 (Annex. 1), the petitioner was intimated by the board that one house has been reserved for him in Sanganer Housing Scheme as per his priority number and he was asked to deposit the seed money in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in three instalments of Rs. 20,000/ -. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/ -. The first instalment was to be deposited within a month from the date of issuance of reservation letter dated 23. 3. 91. There is no disputed that the petitioner deposited the amount of first instalment in time by a Bank Draft. The petitioner was, therefore, eligible to be included in the lottery drawn on 26. 7. 91, but by mistake or negligence of the functionaries of the Board his name was not included in the said draw. IN the said draw the applicants upto priority No. 152 were included while the petitioner's priority No. was 116. It is not disputed before me that in case the petitioner's name had been included in the said draw, he would have been allotted a house/flat in H. I. G. category as per the result of the draw. The petitioner having come to know of his exclusion from the said draw, made a representation to the Chairman of the Board on 2. 8. 91 requesting him either to cancel the said draw or he be allotted a house in the category of H. I. G. in Sanganer Housing Scheme. As usual, the said presentation was not responded to by the respondent. A copy of the aforesaid representation has been placed on record as Annexure-4. The next two instalments of the seed money were also deposited by the petitioner in time, but, still the petitioner was not included in the subsequent draws of lottery on 18. 7. 92, 14. 10. 92, 11. 12. 92, 28. 1. 93 and 31. 3. 93. It appears that the subsequent draws were for out-right sale of the house/flats. The petitioner went on making representations from time to time and some of them have been placed on record as Annexures 10,11 and 12. IN the representation dated, 6. 7. 92 (Annex. 10) addressed to the Chairman of the Board, the petitioner again drew his attention to the injustice done to him by not including his name in the lottery drawn on 26. 7. 91, even though he was eligible and has deposited all the instalments of seed money in time. By the said letter, he requested that his name may now be included in the next lottery going to be drawn on 18. 7. 92. No action was taken on this representation also. The last representation was made by the petitioner on 19. 7. 93 and when no action was taken by the respondent, he filed this writ petition before this Court on 23. 8. 93 challenging the action of the Board to be arbitrary and discriminatory.