Discretionary quotas must satisfy criteria of reasonableness as required by Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. Improvement Trust, Ropar [hereinafter, ‘the Trust’], is in appeal against the directions of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, to allot a plot under discretionary quota to Shashi Bala, a social worker. By order dated 13.05.2008, this Court granted stay and the same was made absolute on 10.08.2009.

2. Heard Shri Birendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the Trust; and Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, appearing for Shashi Bala.

3. Facts, to the extent relevant, unfold thus: Shashi Bala, a social worker, applied to the Chief Minister of Punjab for allotment of a plot of 500 square yards under his discretionary quota on 28.01.1987. Acting thereupon, by letter dated 11.02.1987, the Government of Punjab approved allotment of a residential plot of 500 square yards in Development Scheme Giani Zail Singh Nagar of Improvement Trust, Ropar, to Shashi Bala out of the Government’s discretionary quota under Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 [for brevity ‘the Rules of 1983’], at double the reserve price on usual terms and conditions. This allotment was subject to furnishing of an affidavit by Shashi Bala, as provided in the Rules, along with her Social Welfare Certificate. Upon exchange of correspondence between Shashi Bala and the Trust, Memo dated 04.07.1988 was issued by the Trust calling upon her to submit her duly attested affidavit, as per the enclosed proforma. The Trust stated that upon submission thereof, further action would be taken for allotment of a plot.

4. Shashi Bala claims to have complied with the aforestated requirement but the allotment did not materialize, compelling her to highlight the issue in local newspapers. Thereupon, Press Note dated 10.01.1989 was issued by the Trust in Indian Express Newspaper stating that the documents pertaining to Shashi Bala’s case had been sent to the concerned department for necessary action and the same would be intimated to her in due course. However, by Memo dated 02.01.1989, the Government of Punjab informed Shashi Bala that as there was no plot clearly available for allotment under the Scheme, her claim would be considered only after a plot became available.

5. Complaining of inaction and delay in processing the allotment of a plot to her, Shashi Bala filed CWP No. 9737 of 1992 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Her prayer therein was to direct the authorities to allot her a plot of 500 square yards in Development Scheme Giani Zal Singh Nagar, Ropar. By judgment dated 17.11.2006, a learned Judge allowed the writ petition, noting that the Government had approved allotment of a plot in favour of Shashi Bala and she had complied with the formalities and submitted documents as required. The authorities were directed to allot a plot to her at the price which was fixed at the time when the Government had directed the Trust to allot her a plot in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the Trust filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 2008. However, by judgment dated 23.01.2008, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Government had already approved allotment of a plot to Shashi Bala and there was a finding of fact that she had complied with the formalities and submitted documents as required. Hence, the present appeal by the Trust.

7. The above facts demonstrate that the direction in favour of Shashi Bala came to be passed by the learned Judge in November, 2006, and the same stood confirmed by the Division Bench in January, 2008. However, a crucial fact was not brought to the notice of either the learned Judge or the Division Bench, that is, the legal status of the discretionary quota rule, under which the Government of Punjab had approved allotment of a plot to Shashi Bala, at that p