SULEKHA SINGH Vs. JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the letter dated 14/19.11.2005 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to inform that the allotment of Qr. No. 42/1 -6 in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled and in suppression of letter No. 1446 dated 10.6.2004 allotment of the said quarter to respondent No. 3 is restored. The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forbear them from giving effect to, acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the said letter dated 14/19.11.2005 issued by the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: The quarter No. 42/1 -6 was earlier allotted to respondent No. 3 vide letter No. 266 -A dated 27.5.1992 in accordance with the decision taken in the meeting No. 94/121 of the Housing Board held on 21.01.1985. On 24.7.1997 a hire purchase agreement was executed between Bihar State Housing Board through Executive Engineer and respondent No. 3 and an amount of Rs. 15,000/ - was received from respondent No. 3 vide receipt No. 30 dated 26.11.2005. Subsequently a letter dated 10.6.2004 vide memo No. 1447 was issued in favour of petitioner M/s S.K. Engineering works indicating that the application of the petitioner to allot the quarter in question on monthly rent will be considered on deposit of Rs. 6197/ -. The petitioner thereafter deposited the said amount and receipt was given on 14.6.2004 and accordingly an agreement was entered into allotting the quarter in question to the petitioner on monthly rent. The impugned order dated 19.11.2005 was issued canceling the allotment on monthly rent in favour of the petitioner indicating that false information was given under which the quarter was allotted and accordingly the order of allotment on rent dated 10.6.2004 was withdrawn/cancelled.

(3.) IN reply the private respondent No. 3 has submitted that he was actually allotted the quarter in question pursuant to the Board's decision and the hire purchase agreement was also executed and the amount demanded was also paid which was duly receipted vide receipt dated 26.11.2005. It is also submitted that the quarter was never allotted to the petitioner instead it was on monthly rent based on a scheme and the petitioner gave a false information for allotment on rent.