The obligation of the State and its instrumentalities to act fairly and transparently in the allotment of state largesse, in accordance with the principles of fairness and good governance, and in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

The writ petition was initially filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 488 dated 06.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 5 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bermo, Tenughat, Bokaro, letter no. 218 dated 20.01.2022 issued by the respondent no. 6 – the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro as well as memo no. 07/misc(law)-12/2021/N.Vi.4208(Anu) dated 30.12.2021 issued by respondent no. 2 – the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand.

2. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 5339 of 2022 stating that they have already been evicted from their respective quarters situated at Government Colony, Gomia by the Jharkhand State Housing Board and thus, have prayed for restoration of possession in the said quarters.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the present interlocutory application has primarily contended that the petitioners have been discriminated by the authorities of the Jharkhand State Housing Board as many other similarly situated occupants of quarters in the said colony have been permitted to represent the competent authority of the Housing Board and have not yet been evicted.

4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 as well as letters dated 20.01.2022 and 30.12.2021, it is evident that the steps for evicting the persons from their respective quarters are being taken in terms with order dated 01.11.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1213 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No. 2084 of 2012. Admittedly, there is no valid allotment of quarters in favour of the petitioners. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that many other similarly situated occupants of quarters have been allowed to represent the competent authority of the Jharkhand State Housing Board against the process of eviction, whereas the petitioners have been evicted from their respective quarters, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot claim negative equity while invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is, however, observed that the respondent – Jharkhand State Housing Board is bound to act fairly while dealing with the cases of similarly situated persons. It is high time when the Jharkhand State Housing Board has to set right its functioning. The quarters which have been constructed either by it or by the erstwhile Bihar State Housing Board using public money cannot be allotted in blatant violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, unauthorized occupation of such quarters cannot be allowed to continue any further. There must be fairness and transparency in the process of allotment. Only because the unauthorized occupants have continued in possession of the respective quarters/flats/houses for years together does not give them any right to continue with the said possession.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Asha Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.” reported in (2011) 10 SCC 86 has held as under:

14. Action by the State, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative nature. The standard of fairness is also dependent upon certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons, subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably anticipate the order for the action that the State is likely to take in a given situation. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt elements of uncertainty as t