JYOTI PRAKASH Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rajasthan Housing; Board Act, 1970 was enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature to provide for measure to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need of housing accommodation in the State of Rajasthan The Rajasthan Homing Board, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') respondent herein, is a Board established under Section 4 of the said Act, In exercise of powers conferred on it, under the aforesaid Act, the Board constructs houses of various types which are allotted to applicants who are divided into various categories on the basis of their annual income. In 1977 the Board issued a scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'Registration Scheme') whereby it invited applications for registration for allotment of houses. Under the Registration Scheme, the applicants were divided on the basis of income In the following categories and different registration fees were prescribed for registration of applications falling in the various categories: Income Group Annual Income Registration FeeJanta Upto Rs. 2400/ - 100/ -Economically WeakerSection 2401/ - to 4200/ - 500/ -Lower Income Group 4201/ - to 7200/ - 2500/ -Middle Income Group 7201/ - to 18000/ - 5000/ -High Income Group Above Rs. 18000/ - 10000/ -

(2.) IN paragraph 6 of the Registration Scheme, the size and accommodation provided in the various types of houses, that were being constructed at that time were given and the types of houses which were available for allotment to the applicants belonging? to the different categories were mentioned against each category. The types of houses which were mentioned against the Economically Weaker Section, Lower Income Group, Middle Income Group were as under: Income group Types of housesEconomically Weaker Section Gh -1 (13'x38')J -2 (18'x38') J -3 (20'x38') A -1 (20'x50')Lower Income Group J -2 (18'x38s)J -3(20'x38')A -1 (20'x50')A -2 (25'x50')M -1 (30'x60')Middle Income Group A -2 (25'x50')M -1 (30'x60') M -2 (40'x60') U -1 (40'x90')

(3.) IN support of this writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (1) By getting himself registered under the Registration Scheme, the petitioner had acquired the right to be allotted M -I type of house and that right of the petitioner could not be taken away by the subsequent scheme framed by the Board in as much as under the Act, the Board has no power to frame regulations or scheme with retrospective effect. (ii) The Board, by inviting applications for registration on the basis of the Registration Scheme, had made a representation to the petitioner that he would be entitled to allotment of M 1 type of house and acting on the basis of that representation, the petitioner had altered his position to detriment by depositing the registration fees, and that in view of the principle of promissory estoppel the board cannot deny the right of the petitioner to be allotted M -l type of house in accordance with the Registration Scheme. (iii) In the exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Act, the Board must act reasonably and that in depriving the petitioner and other applicants, who had got themselves registered in the lower income group under the Registration Scheme, of their right to be allotted M -1 type houses, the Board has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably.