Fairness and accountability are essential in the allotment processes of private societies, ensuring no favoritism or bias in decisions affecting members.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service, enabling housing facilities to its members by transparent allotment. The second respondent HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (for short, ‘HEWO’) is one such society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The enactment provides for establishment of societies for the promotion of literature, science, fine arts, diffusion of useful knowledge, diffusion of political education and for charitable purposes, as the preamble proclaims. Obviously, HEWO is constituted for a charitable purpose, especially on the principle that charity begins at home, to benefit its own members by allotment of housing facilities. In the present case, we are concerned with the allotment of two super deluxe flats in the apartment complex built by HEWO.

3. The appellant herein admitted to the membership of HEWO, is eligible by way of his 14 years of deputation in the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, ‘HUDA’) which is alternatively referred to in the vernacular as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (for short, ‘HSVP’). One of the flats available was conceded to a governing body member, the third respondent based on a decision taken by HEWO in the year 2020 and in the picking of lots conducted for the one remaining flat, the fourth respondent turned out to be successful. The appellant challenged the allotment of the super deluxe flats to the third and fourth respondents, alleging them to be ineligible and accusing HEWO of favoritism, to both its governing body member, the third respondent and his subordinate, the fourth respondent.

4. The respondents, HEWO and the beneficiaries resisted the writ petition first on the ground of Article 226 not being capable of invocation, the society being a private entity, not subject to governmental control, thus taking it out of the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The allotments were asserted to be in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the society and the exception carved out was urged to be unexceptionable for reason of it being a common place practice as decided by the Governing Body in the past. The third respondent was a governing body member so enabled preference by the earlier decision, and the fourth respondent satisfied the basic pay requirement, which alone was the consideration as per the decision of the Governing Body. The appellant had participated and lost and hence, could not challenge the allotment was the defense.

5. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court after setting out the facts and the respective contentions found invocation of Article 226 to be proper. Especially when lack of transparency and violation of fairness and reasonableness was raised, considering the fact that the land stands allotted by the Government and the privilege conferred upon the members of the society to seek allotment of housing facilities. Though no argument was raised by the respondents on this count, for completeness it has to be observed that we perfectly agree with the said findings of the High Court. Noticing additionally that the members were all government employees, specifically the persons who were in the employment of the HUDA or who were on deputation having a minimum service of six months in the department, to whom preferential allotment was made of flats constructed by HEWO was allotted. The Governing Body of the Society also comprises ex officio members, holding responsible positions in t