Entitlement to relief under discretionary jurisdiction.

The present action by R.Sarojini, the petitioner herein, is under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records connected with the order of the Superintending Engineer, World Bank Circle, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras-40, the first respondent herein, in Letter No.AS 5/14843/81, dated 10. 1982, cancelling the allotment of plot No.3/173 in Villivakkam Sites and Services Scheme and quash the order therein dated 10. 1982.

2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board in collaboration with Madras Metropolitan Development Authority floated a scheme with the assistance of the World Bank to provide house sites together with semi-structure for the benefit of the economically weaker sections of people. The scheme was taken up at Kodungaiyur Village and Villivakkam area and was called Villivakkam Sites and Services Scheme Phase-1. According to the scheme and the rules in force, it is said, only one, either the husband or the wife in other words in only family is entitled for only one allotment, provided the applicant being a resident of Madras City for more than ten years, and does not own a house site or houses within the limits of Chengalpattu and Madras Districts. As per the scheme, a lot will be drawn for the allotment of plots and the eligible applicants will be favoured with allotments, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions of allotment in clause 11 thereto prescribes that allotment is liable for cancellation if any information given by the applicant is found to be false.

3. The petitioner, it transpires, submitted two applications viz. 28,620 and 24,722 for allotment of plots on 11. 1981 and 11. 1981 respectively. In Application No.28620, she indicated her husband’s name as I..Veeraraghavan profitably employed as Supervisor in M/s.Sakthi Builders, Madras-18 getting a monthly salary of Rs.500. In Application No.24722 she did not indicate her husband’s employment and income but indicated her income as Rs.250 per month, as a clerk in the very same concern, M/s.Sakthi Builders. She is said to have been favoured with allotments in both applications and Plots 3/173 and 6/14 ‘A’ type in Villivakkam were allotted. The petitioner’s husband, Veeraraghavan, filed Application No.34294 in Kodungaiyur scheme mentioning that he was Job Typist in the High Court. The petitioner’s husband’s second wife Tmt.Sargunalakshmi filed Application No.28352 for allotment in Kodungaiyur. Both were allotted plots in Nos.4/26 and 3/ 232 in Kodungaiyur.

4. The same address viz. No.20, Muthukrishnan Street, Kondithope, Madras-1, was stated to have been furnished in all the applications submitted by the petitioner and her husband, thereby indicating that both of them were living together as members of one family. However, the petitioner’s husband’s second wife gave her address as C/o.N.Balakrishnan, Plot No.1482,13th West Cross Street, Housing Board Colony, Vyasarpadi. All the four applications were stated to have been affixed with photo prints of the members of the family, thereby pointing out with certainty that all applications related to the members of one family. Thus, in effect, the petitioner’s family was favoured with four allotments.

5. On coming to know about the allotments secured by suppression of facts and false declarations, the first respondent cancelled allotment of Plot No.3/173 in favour of the petitioner with forfeiture of earnest money deposit with interest, giving rise to the present action.

6. She obtained interim relief of stay of cancellation of allotment on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no notice was given prior to cancellation.

7. Subsequent to the present action, it is said, on 1. 1993 allotment of Plot No.6/14 in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled. However, the other two allotments, Plot Nos.4/26 and 2/307, in favour of the petitioner’s husband and her husband’s second wife respectively are still in tact. During the c