ORDER :

(R.M.CHHAYA, J.)

1. Heard learned party-in-person.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 2.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Nirzar S. Desai, J.), the learned party-in-person has preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

The appellant preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed as under:-

“(B) Allow this petition by directing the respondent to allot separate residential dwelling units the petitioner in Kalyannagar area, wherein, the petitioner are having their prime right to be rehabilitated in view of in situ policy.

(C) Grant the interim relief by restraining the respondent from making any draw for the allotment of the residential premises for the remaining 94 residential dwelling units which are vacant in the Kalyannagar area.”

It is the case of the petitioner that he is son of one Salmaben Anvar Chauhan and Anvar Jashbhai Chauhan who were occupiers of a dwelling unit in Kalyannagar slum, situated within the local limits of Vadodara Municipal Corporation. It is a matter of record that the respondent-Corporation came out with a scheme, whereunder alternative accommodation to all Kalyannagar slum dwellers was provided for and Kalyannagar slum came to be demolished. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner should have been provided residential accommodation at the residential units constructed at Kalyannagar and not at Maneja as provided by the respondent – Corporation. According to the petitioner, the respondent - Corporation has developed about 580 dwelling units in Kalyannagar area, out of which, 94 units are still vacant and therefore, allotment of residential unit to the petitioner in Kalyannagar area is available and the same should have been allotted to the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent - Corporation has not followed the guidelines of Rajiv Aavas Yojana Scheme/ guidelines and it was contended by the petitioner that the petitioner should have been allotted residential premises only in Kalyannagar area. The petition was opposed by the respondent - Corporation and a detailed affidavit-in-reply was filed. The learned Single Judge, by impugned judgment and order, was pleased to reject the petition considering the affidavit-in-reply and more particularly, Paragraphs 3 and 10 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-Corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

4. Learned party-in-person has in fact reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge before us. It was contended by the learned party-in-person that as per the scheme, as far as possible, alternative dwelling is to be provided at the same place and not at a far place. It was contended that the learned Single Judge has also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has suppressed material fact of allotment of dwelling unit in favour of his parents relying upon Paragraph 3 of the petition, wherein it is mentioned by the petitioner that “The petitioner states that the respondent-Corporation illegally and arbitrarily allotted a dwelling unit to petitioner family along with the other slum dwellers of Kalyannagar at Final Plot no.48, Sayajipura by illegal draw.....”. On the aforesaid contention, it was contended by the learned party-in-person that there is no suppression of fact. The learned party-inperson further contended that as per the policy of situ rehabilitation, the appellant is entitled to dwelling unit in Kalyannagar area itself.

5. It was also contended that the officer who has filed an affidavit-in-reply is in jail in wake of a scam of allotment unearthed by the respondent–Corporation. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the appellant. Relying upon the Computerized Allotment Draw of EWS Scheme, Plot P-1, Kaly