The court emphasized the need for public officials to exercise their powers with sensitivity to the facts and circumstances of a given case and not with pre-conceived opinions, and highlighted the importance of adhering to relevant considerations and avoiding gross unreasonableness in decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

(Rahul Bharti, J.)

1. The facts and the circumstances of the case, in the light of which the adjudication of the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has to proceed, need to be set out.

2. The respondent in the case is the widow of one Kuldeep Kumar Gupta. The respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta, upon coming across with an advertisement issued by the appellant no.2 i.e., J and K Housing Board, Jammu meant for allotment of developed residential plots at Housing Colony, Channi Himmat Jammu on 20 years lease basis, had come to apply for allotment of a plot. It was somewhere in October 1980 that the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta had so applied to the appellant no.2 which, vide its letter no. CH/11/903 dated 18.07.1983, came to order an allotment of a plot of 30’x55’ dimension in favour of the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta.

3. After a while, the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta, by his application dated 13.10.1984, had applied to the appellant no.2 for the allotment of a regular size plot measuring 40’x80’, than the plot 30’x55’ so allotted, in response where to the appellant no.2 had called upon the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta to pay the enhanced cost for the allotment of the said sized plot of 40’x80’.

4. Having done the needful by the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta, the appellant no.2, vide its letter no.HD/CH/II/903 dated 26.06.1987, had notified the allotment of plot no.139 measuring 40’x80’ in Sector-I in the Housing Colony, Channi Himmat, Jammu which resulted in execution of a registered lease deed dated 04.10.1989 in favour of the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta for a period of 20 years, upon the expiry of which, the provision for transferring the ownership rights qua the demised plot was provided. The respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta had paid a premium of Rs.40,000/- in the year 1987 for being conferred with the leasehold rights quo the said plot. Consequent upon the execution of lease deed, the possession of the said plot No.139, Sector-I Channi Himmat Jammu was also handed over to the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta in August, 1991.

5. The respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta came to expire on 02/02/1994 constraining the respondent to apply to the appellant no.2 for change of name of her deceased husband and insertion of her name as lessee of the plot no.139 Sector-I Channi Himmat Jammu in the record of the appellant no.2. It was upon so approached by the respondent that the appellant no.2, instead of incorporating the name of the respondent in place of her deceased husband as lessee of the plot No.139, Sector-I Channi Himmat, Jammu, came to pass an order no.179 of 2006 dated 11.12.2006 issued vide communication no. HB 2128-29 dated 12.12.2006 by the Secretary of the appellant no.2 to the effect that the respondent’s husband Kuldeep Kumar Gupta had filed a false affidavit and obtained allotment by misrepresentation/suppression of facts and fraud and as such the allotment made was cancelled and the premium forfeited.

6. The issuance of this communication along with order from the appellant nos. 2 and 3’s end had led the respondent to file a writ petition OWP no.953/2006 before the then the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, which came to be disposed of vide a judgment dated 14.10.2015 by which the said order no.179 of 2006 dated 11.12.2006 was quashed on the ground that the appellant no.2 had not adhered to the procedure for effecting the cancellation of the allotment and further the same was done at the back of the respondent without affording her an opportunity of being heard.

7. The appellant no.2 had taken the said judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed in OWP no.953/2006 in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench of this High Court which confirmed and upheld the said judgment dated 14.10.2015 of the writ Court with liberty to the appellant no.2 to issue notice to the respondent for filing objections and pass fresh