Back
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
The court found that the allotment processes must adhere to the principles of fairness and accountability, striking down the actions of the Governing Body as arbitrary [judgement_subject]. The court observed that the Governing Body members, in their capacity as responsible officers of the Government, should act in a fiduciary capacity for the common good, ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability, while eschewing favouritism, bias, and arbitrariness (!) . The court found no reason to uphold the allotment made to the third respondent, describing it as a clear act of favouritism and a blatant display of self-aggrandizement (!) . The court also expressed doubts with respect to the application made by the fourth respondent being on time, and found the ineligibility of the fourth respondent to be stark and obvious (!) . Considering the gross abuse of powers and authority carried out in the case, the court was inclined to set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allotment of flats by hewo (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents' challenges and defenses (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. analysis of favoritism and rules violations (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. procedural issues in allotments (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final ruling on appeal and costs imposed (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
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.
5. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court after s
Fairness and accountability are essential in the allotment processes of private societies, ensuring no favoritism or bias in decisions affecting members.
The court affirmed that society governing bodies can allocate memberships based on their rules, provided actions adhere to outlined eligibility criteria and transparency principles.
The court held that decisions by a governing body must be honored in flat allotment processes, emphasizing fairness and reasonable treatment in public property distribution.
Allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Society – Land is a precious material resource of community and least which is required from State is transparency in its distribution.
Service Law - Allotment of flat - Rule 7(i) of Policy provides that no application shall be entertained for accommodation if employee is retiring on superannuation in next six months, meaning there b....
Process of applying the pick and choose policy and making allotments at the whims and fancies of the persons in power continued in the State.
The court ruled that preferential land allotment policies favoring certain privileged groups violate Article 14 of the Constitution, undermining equality and public interest.
Vesting of land in State – Appropriate area can be carved out from Sector 43 of NOIDA and provision can be made for multi-storeyed complex.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
