S P MEHNDIRATTA Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this complaint, the complainant has prayed for various relief (s) including the relief for directions to the opposite party to withdraw the order dated 13.2.1992, Annexure P-10, whereby the allotment of the flat to the complainant and Provisional Registration No.28-STRY-SFS-CAT-II (F) PH-II/ 90 for such purpose was cancelled.

(2.) The brief relevant facts set out in the complaint are that in pursuance of an advertisement for the allotment of Category-II flat in Housing Board Colony at Strawberry Hills Estate, Shimla, the complainant applied for such allotment and alongwith the application, he furnished an affidavit before the opposite party to the effect that he did not own any house/flat/plot in his name or in the name of any of his family members individually or jointly within the area of Notified Area Committee, Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation of Himachal Pradesh and that he deposited the requisite money as demanded by the opposite party alongwith earnest money. The draw of lots later on was held as per letter dated 5.7.1991, Annexure P-2 and consequently after the draw of lots, the complainant was in fact allotted a Category-1 flat vide letter dated 25.11.1991, Annexure P-3. No doubt this allotment letter requires the complainant to furnish an affidavit to the effect that he does not own individually or jointly any house, flat or plot in his name or in the name of his family within the area of any Notified Area Committee, Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation of Himachal Pradesh within 30 days but, according to the complainant, such condition contemplated in this allotment letter is arbitrary and should not be taken note of and the affidavit filed by the complainant initially alongwith the application should be considered as sufficient compliance of the requirement of furnishing of an affidavit to the above effect. Since the complainant could not furnish the required affidavit at the relevant time on allotment, that itself should not stand in the way of final allotment. The action of the opposite party, therefore, of withdrawing the allotment and registration of the complainant is arbitrary and that the opposite party should be directed to withdraw that letter and that he should be allotted the flat.

(3.) The opposite party has rebutted the allegations of the complainant in the reply and have stated that the purpose of this Scheme was to provide residential accommodation to the retiring and retired officers who do not own any house/flat/plot in their own names or m the names of any of their family members individually or jointly in the urban areas of Himachal Pradesh and those who possess such house, flat or plot in their names or in the names of their family members in urban areas of Himachal Pradesh, would not be allotted such flat, house or plot. Since the complainant, admittedly, owned a flat within the Municipal limits at the time of draw of lots before 24.9.1991, which was the mandatory requirement of the opposite party, he was not entitled to be allotted such a flat. The complainant, according to the opposite party, has concealed the fact that vide order dated 11.6.1991, Flat No.8 in Housing Colony, Knoll's Wood, Shimla which had been previously allotted to one Shri T. R. Suri was allowed to be transferred in the name of the complainant and that is why he did not file such affidavit as required after the draw of lots.