1992 (0) MPLJ 638
R Lahoti, S Dwivedi
Devendrapalsingh Bhujpalsingh ...
vs
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
Decided on : 5 March, 1992
M.P. HOUSING BOARD - ALLOTMENT OF HOUSE - ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL DEPRIVATION - ALLOTMENT OF HOUSE NO. 10 - M.P. HOUSING BOARD (M.P.H.B.) - HIRE-PURCHASE SCHEME - MIDDLE-INCOME-GROUP - FIRST-COME-FIRST-SERVED BASIS - NO-PROFIT-NO-LOSS BASIS - PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF HOUSE NO. 10 - BOARD'S REFUSAL - PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR HOUSE UNDER HUDCO SCHEME - BOARD'S CONTENTION THAT PETITIONER'S ACTION OPERATES AS ESTOPPEL - PETITIONER'S ACTION IN CONSEQUENCE OF MISLEADING STATEMENT BY BOARD - NO ESTOPPEL - BOARD'S DUTY TO ACT IMPARTIALLY, HONESTLY, REASONABLY AND FAIRLY - BOARD'S CHANGE OF VERSION IN RETURN - FALSE PLEA - PETITION ALLOWED - DIRECTION TO BOARD TO ALLOT HOUSE NO. 10 TO PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner applied for allotment of house under M.P.H.B.'s Hire-Purchase Scheme in 1979. In 1984, petitioner received allotment order for house No. 17. Petitioner requested Board to allot house No. 10, which was available. Board refused, stating that house No. 10 was allotted under President's special quota. Petitioner applied under HUDCO Scheme in 1986. Petitioner later learned that house No. 10 was not allotted to anyone. Petitioner filed petition challenging Board's action.
Finding of the Court:
Board's action in refusing to allot house No. 10 to petitioner was illegal, discriminatory, and arbitrary. Board's attempt to allot the house to someone favorite was mala fide, arbitrary, and illegal. Board's subsequent act of changing its version in the return was a false plea belatedly taken to defeat petitioner's just claim. Petitioner's action in applying for a house under HUDCO scheme in consequence of the misleading statement made by the Board cannot operate as estoppel against him.
Issues: Whether Board's action in refusing to allot house No. 10 to petitioner was illegal, discriminatory, and arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: A State, local bodies, and public authorities are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and are duty bound to act in accordance with the rules and regulations framed or adopted by it. If its action smacks of arbitrariness, discrimination, and mala fides, it is open to challenge and subject to judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: Petition allowed. Direction to Board to allot house No. 10 to petitioner on the terms and conditions in force in the year 1984.
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of being arbitrarily and illegally deprived of the allotment of house No. 10 in the town of Morena covered under the Hire-purchase Scheme, for middle-income-group of respondent No. 2, M. P. Housing Board (for short the Board), published in the year 1979, on first-come-first-served basis. The Board aims at providing residential facilities to needy and desirous persons no-profit-no-loss basis.
2. Keeping in view the acute housing problem in the State, M. P. Housing Board has been constituted by the State and it has undertaken the work of construction of dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups. In the year 1979, respondent No. 2, invited applications from persons desirous of taking constructed houses under the scheme requiring individuals to deposit Rs. 3000/- for the registration. In case of Government employees, such requirement as to deposit was reduced to 50% and as such they were required to deposit Rs. 1500/- only.
3. The petitioner being State employee deposited Rs. 1500/- on 24-8-1979, vide Annexure P-2. In the year 1984, the petitioner received the allotment order (Annexure P-3), informing him that house No. 17 has been allotted to him under the Scheme. The petitioner thereon moved the Board that some persons who were not covered under the Scheme, nor so registered have been allotted house Nos. 1 to 4 under special quota. There is no provision of special quota and such quota was neither notified nor was available. It was further submitted by the petitioner to the Board that M.I.G. house No. 10 had not been allotted to anyone and was available for allotment. As such, the petitioner vide Annexure P-4, dated 20-11-1984, requested the Board to allot him house No. 10. But the Board by its letter dated 12-12-1984, Annexure P-5, refused to allot the house No. 10 to the petitioner stating that house No. 10 stood already allotted under President's special quota while house Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were available for allotment only on payment of full price in advance.
4. On the above statement made by the Board, the petitioner got misled. Having applied in the year 1979, the petitioner did not get a house of his choice till 1986, although his name was at serial No. 1 in the priority list. So when subsequently another scheme, known as 'HUDCO Scheme', was published by the Board for Morena in the year 1986, the petitioner applied under that scheme too obviously compelled by the circumstances. He deposited in all an amount of Rs. 22,600/- in instalment on different dates with the Board.
5. Thereafter, it came to be known to the petitioner that in fact house No. 10 had not been allotted to anyone till then and further that steps were being taken to allot the same to one of the individuals of the Board's favour. Therefore petitioner filed this petition and also prayed for the grant of ad interim writ which was allowed on 24-5-1990.
6. In this petition, now the petitioner submits that the action of the Board, refusing to allot house No. 10 to him on false pretext, is illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary. The petitioner has challenged the bona fides of the action. The petitioner claims allotment of house No. 10, now being placed at serial No. 1 of the priority list and the house being available for allotment, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
7. When in November 1984, the petitioner by Annexure P-4 sought allotment of house No. 10 from the Board, claiming allotment on priority basis, stating that the house was vacant and available as was not allotted to any one, at that time it was very specifically stated by the Board vide Annexure P-5 that :
^^mijksDr fo"k; esa vkidks lwfpr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd vkius fnukad 30&11&84 dks i= fn;k Fkk fd vki Hkou kad 10 ,e- vkbZ- th-] eqjSuk esa fufeZr dks ysus dh bPNk O;Dr dh gSA Hkou kad 10 v/;{kh; va'k ls vkoaVu fd;k tk pqdk gSA pwafd Hkou kad 7] 8] 9 esa iw
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.