IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that administrative decisions regarding allotment policies operate prospectively, ensuring that applicants who complied with prior requirements are not adversely affected by subsequent changes.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which, the writ petition filed by the respondents-petitioners has been allowed and a mandamus has been issued to the appellants for allotment of Plinth Level Houses on 236 sq. mtr. plot in Sector 26, Pratap Nagar.

2. The writ petition was filed by 3 petitioners namely, Shri Dharmendra, Shri Loon Karan and Shri Sanjay Chobisa seeking issuance of writ of mandamus in the matter of their claim for allotment of plots on the factual premise that though they had deposited registration fee towards allotment of plot under the special registration scheme for allotment of plinth level houses for employees in the year 2002, the appellants arbitrarily and illegally withheld allotment despite amount already been paid by all the petitioners from time to time, as demanded by the appellants.

3. Defending their action, the appellants had come out with the case that right from the beginning, the respondents did not comply with the conditions with regard to deposit of entire registration fee amount, though later on it was condoned. It is further submitted that towards allotment of plinth level houses, the writ petitioners were also required to take further steps towards deposit of seed amount but even that was not done until 2014, whereas, the amount was required to be deposited under the scheme soon after the Board’s resolution dated 30.11.2006. Before the petitioners could deposit the seed amount, the policy itself underwent change as the Board of Directors of the Housing Board, vide its resolution dated 16.07.2009, resolved not to allot plinth level houses in future and, therefore, the writ petitioners could not have claimed the allotment as of right only on the ground that certain pre-deposits were made by them.

4. The arguments raised by the writ petitioners found favour with the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned Single Judge held that once the writ petitioners had deposited the registration fee along with interest as per the resolution dated 30.11.2006 and further noting that once similarly situated applicant-Manju Sharma was allotted house under a lottery dated 30.03.2007, and further taking into consideration that the process of allotment remained stalled because of pending litigation and interim orders operating, allowed the writ petition and issued directions in favour of the respondents-writ petitioners, giving rise to this appeal.

6. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Housing Board strenuously and vehemently urged before us that the learned Single Judge committed perversity in recording the finding contrary to the admitted facts of record, particularly, with regard to compliance of various terms and conditions regarding deposit of registration fee by the respondents-writ petitioners. He would further submit that even though with some delay and after condonation, vide resolution dated 30.11.2006 of the Board, balance payment towards registration fee with interest was paid, the seed amount was not deposited for long. In the meantime, petitions were filed and further allotment were stayed by the High Court. During pendency of the petition and interim order in operation, the Board abandoned the earlier policy of 2002 vide resolution dated 16.07.2009, and decided not to allot plinth level houses. On the basis of the decision taken by the Board, the Housing Commissioner passed an order dated 18.08.2009 discontinuing the policy of 2002. The writ petitioners having not challenged the aforesaid Board’s resolution dated 16.07.2009 and subsequent order dated 18.08.2009 of the Housing Commissioner, are not entitled to any relief.

7. On the other hand, supporting the order of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners submitted that even though initially registration fee was shortly paid, subseque