JUDGMENT 1. - A duty to find accommodation for the homeless is a sacred duty cast 1 upon all the Welfare States. Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India enjoins upon I the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting K as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. 2. The Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act') has been enacted in this State to provide for measures to be taken to deal and satisfy the need of housing accommodation. Section 26(1) of the Act empowers the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short 'the Board') to frame and execute such housing schemes as it may consider necessary and the Housing Schemes, inter-alia, can be a house accommodation scheme, a city expansion scheme or any other types of schemes enumerated in that section. The Board is a statutory body established under section 4 of the Act. It is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to enter into contracts and may by its corporate name sue and be sued and do all things and acts necessary for the purpose of this Act. The constitution of the Board is provided for in section 5 of the Act. According to this, the Board shall consist of a Chairman appointed by the State Government and following other members, namely (a) Financial Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan. ex-Officio member, (b) Secretary to Government Town Planning Department. ex-Officio member; (c) Chief Town Planner and Architectural Adviser ex-Officio member; (d) Housing Commissioner of the Board ex-Officio member; (e) Six nonofficial members, appointed by the Government of whom one shall belong to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In Chapter-III of the Act, the Board has been empowered to incur expenditure and undertake works in any area in which this Act is in force for the framing and execution of such Housing Schemes as it may consider necessary. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 details-out the types of such Housing Schemes. In Chapter-III of the Act, the Board has been empowered to incur expenditure and undertake works in any area in which this Act is in force for the framing and execution of such Housing Schemes as it may consider necessary. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 details-out the types of such Housing Schemes. Then, Section 53 empowers the Board to make regulations consistent with the Act and with any rules made under the Act, including the regulations regarding the principles to be followed in allotment of tenements and premises. The Board, in exercise of its powers given under-section 53 of the Act, has made Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Regulations'). Regulation-26 provides constitution and functions of Property Allotment Committee. For the sake of convenience, this regulation may be reproduced as under Regulation-26 "Constitution and functions of Property Allotment Committee (1) The Board shall for the purpose of allotment of property under these regulations constitute a Committee to be called the Property Allotment Committee (hereinafter called the Committee) consisting of 5 persons as detailed below - (1) Chairman, Housing Board Chairman of the Committee. (2) One official member of the Board Member (3) One non-official member of the Board Member (4) Collector of the Distt. concerned. Member (5) Chairman, UIT/Municipality concerned. Member Note:- The Members of the Committee as at S. Nos. 2 and 3 shall be nominated by the Board. (ii) Such Property Allotment Committee may be constituted either for a specific scheme or for a set of schemes or for a particular place or as a general Property Allotment Committee as found expedient and convenient and desirable by the Board, with or without directives that may be issued from time to time by it. (iii) The Committee shall determine which of the applicants are eligible for registration/allotment and the decision of the Committee in this regard shall be final. (iv) The Committee shall have the power to make enquiries, call for information from any person whomsoever, demand documents and evidence from the applicant and do any other thing which it considers necessary or expedient for the discharge of its functions. (iv) The Committee shall have the power to make enquiries, call for information from any person whomsoever, demand documents and evidence from the applicant and do any other thing which it considers necessary or expedient for the discharge of its functions. (v) A list of the allottees/hirers as determined by the Committee shall be put up for information to the Board in their next meeting." Section-52 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of this power, the State Government framed the Rajasthan Housing Board (Publication to Housing Scheme) Rules, 1976 for regulating the manner of publication for Housing Schemes. Under the said rules, it is provided that a housing scheme shall be published in the form given in the Schedule appended to the rules. By virtue of the form, prescribed in the Schedule appended to the said rules, the Board is required to give various details relating to the Housing Schemes. 3. After its establishment, the Board has been framing and executing various Housing Schemes in various towns and cities in the State of Rajasthan. As the Board has to depend on the State Government and other financial institutions for the requisite funds for the execution of Housing Schemes/development of Housing Schemes etc., it has introduced several Self Financing Schemes from time to time. The basic character of such Scheme is that a particular number of houses are constructed by the Board, the finances of which are made available by the registered applicants under the Scheme.In the year 1987, the Board formulated/published a Scheme known as 'Kalptaru Scheme' and in the year 1988, another Self Financing Scheme was formulated/published known as 'Parijat Self Financing Scheme'. Under the 'Kalptaru Scheme', constructed houses of various categories are provided by the Board to the registered applicants within ten years, while in 'Parijat Scheme' a time bound programme has been given to provide houses in two years to the registered applicants under the Scheme, who provide finances for the construction of the house in the manner prescribed in the Scheme. 4. Now coming to the facts of the case. 4. Now coming to the facts of the case. The petitioner's father got himself registered in 'Kalptaru Scheme' in the year 1987, but later-on the said registration, on an application to that effect, was transferred in the name of the petitioner on May 19,1990, as per the Board's general decision and after completion of all legal formalities.After introduction and publication of 'Parijat Self Financing Scheme' in the month of June of the year 1988, the petitioner opted to be registered under the said Scheme as provided by Board's public notice (Annex.-3). Consequently, the petitioner was duly registered with the respondent-Board for a H.I.G. house of Category-III in Tarijat Self Financing Scheme'. His registration was for second quarter of the year 1988 i.e. the quarter ending June, 1988. 5. Before narrating further facts of the case, it is necessary to state some of the salient features of Tarijat Self Financing Scheme', which inter alia are: (A) It is a self-financing scheme under which a registered applicant is required to deposit the price of the house in four instalments and the Board provides a constructed house within a period of two years. Neither the Board pays interest on the amount deposited by the applicant nor it charges interest on the expenditure made by it. (B) Keeping in view the convenience and financial capacity of the applicants, the Board has decided to give following options to persons desiring to have houses by their self-finance : (i) Parijat-I - Two bed-rooms houses as shown in the plan in Schedule-I annexed to the Parijat Booklet (Annex.-2) will be constructed under this category. (ii) Parijat-II - For applicants who are not able to arrange for finances of a completed house, house would be made available to such applicants after reducing one bed-room. Of this reduced one bed-room, foundations will be filled-in by the Board so that the applicant may later on construct that reduced bed-room according to his convenience. The plot size and the size of the room of this category of houses would be the same as that of Parijat-I, the plan of this category of houses is also given in Schedule-I annexed to the Booklet. ((iii) Parijat-III - Several persons desire to provide for fixtures of superior quality like doors, flooring, sanitary fittings etc. The plot size and the size of the room of this category of houses would be the same as that of Parijat-I, the plan of this category of houses is also given in Schedule-I annexed to the Booklet. ((iii) Parijat-III - Several persons desire to provide for fixtures of superior quality like doors, flooring, sanitary fittings etc. To save them from incurring double expenditure, such persons are being given option for Parijat-III, under this option, a complete, but skeleton house with outside plaster will be constructed and provided by the Board and the applicant will affix the doors, wiring, inside plaster, flooring etc., at his own expenses. For such skeleton houses, the Board will charge only the cost price of and with the skeleton. The size of the plots of such houses with constructed area and cost are given in Schedule-2 of the Booklet. (C) Registration under the 'Parijat Self Financing Scheme' will be open through-out the year and the cost of the house for every quarter will be determined separately. The applicant will be charged that cost of the house which has been decided in relation to the quarter in which he had made the application. This was also necessary because building material price and cost of construction are continuously rising and, therefore, the cost of the house for a long duration cannot be pre-determined. (D) An applicant under the 'Parijat Self Financing Scheme' has to opt for either of the above three category houses. Under each category, the applicant registered During a particular period constitute a separate class. Cost of the houses of each category arc. different, amount of instalments are different and they vary from quarter to quarter. i ne cost of Category-III house in relation to the petitioner relevant to second quarter of the year 1988 was Rs. 1, 49, 656/- and amount of six monthly instalment was Rs. 37,414/-. (E) The Self-Financing Scheme was already. available to registered applicants of the Board under High Income Group and Middle Income Group. ((F) If the applicant has not made any default in payment of instalment, the Board will deliver possession of the house to him within two years. 1, 49, 656/- and amount of six monthly instalment was Rs. 37,414/-. (E) The Self-Financing Scheme was already. available to registered applicants of the Board under High Income Group and Middle Income Group. ((F) If the applicant has not made any default in payment of instalment, the Board will deliver possession of the house to him within two years. If the Board is not able to deliver possession within this period, it would pay interest ) 6% per annum on the total amount deposited in respect of the period commencing from the expiry of two years and up to the date of issue of the order to the allottee for delivery of possession. 6. The petitioner's case is that he was registered in the second quarter of the year 1988 in Parijat Category-III.On March 25,1991, a lottery was to be drawn in the campus of the Board at Jaipur amongst the registered applicants for allotment of houses for second quarter of the year 1988 in Parijat-I and III Categories. Special information in this connection was published by the Board in the daily newspaper Nav Bharat Times' of 19th March, 1991. A photostat copy of the said publication has been placed on the record as Annex.-5. In the said information, it was notified that a list of the eligible persons would be pasted on the notice board of the Board's main office at Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, at 3.00 P.M. on March 19, 1991. Objections against the said list were to be entertained up to March 22, 1991, and after corrections, the final list of the eligible applicants was to be notified on the notice board at 11.30 A.M. on March 23, 1991. Accordingly, on March 19, 1991, a list of 19 eligible persons in Parijat Category-III of second quarter of the year 1988 was notified on the notice board. A copy of the same has been placed on the record as Annex. 6. It is noteworthy that 'the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 2 in the said list, while the name of the respondent No. 5 is not included.As per the programme, the lottery was drawn on March 25, 1991 and its result Annex.-7 was notified on the notice board on the same day. Then, the petitioner came to know that the name of respondent No. 5 Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was also in the same list. Then, the petitioner came to know that the name of respondent No. 5 Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was also in the same list. In this result, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned at serial No. 2 and the name of the respondent No. 5 Sh. Bhairulal Gupta has been mentioned at serial No. 20. 7. According to the petitioner, the respondent Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was never notified by the Board at any point of time as an eligible person for participation in the draw of lottery, and there were only 19 eligible persons, whose names were notified in the list Annex.-6, in which the name of respondent No. 5 Sh. Gupta did not find place. Thus, the lottery was to be drawn amongst 19 notified persons only and the name of Sh. Gupta was illegally, fraudulently and arbitrarily included and feeded at the time of the draw of the lottery. It was further given-out that all the 19 houses of Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of the year 1988 were constructed in Sector-10 of Mansarovar - Jaipur, and house No. 56/10 in Sector-5 was illegally feeded in the draw to include Sh. Bhairulal Gupta by a back door entry. It is further stated that the respondent No. 5 Sh. Bhairulal Gupta, had never got himself registered in Parijat Category-Ill in the second quarter of the year 1988 (i.e. the quarter ending June, 1988), and in fact, Sh. Gupta was registered for Parijat Category-III only in or after the third quarter of the year 1988, and the payment of the instalments were also made by him on that basis. It was then given out that there were only 19 applicants in Parijat Category - III in second quarter of 1988, as such, only 19 houses were constructed in Sector - 10. Then, Sh. Gupta did not file any objection against the list of 19 eligible candidates/applicants notified on the notice board. The petitioner has further stated that no revised list was notified by the Board on March 23, 1991 including the name of Sh. Gupta or any other person, since there was no objection against the list of 19 eligible applicants/persons contained in Annex. The petitioner has further stated that no revised list was notified by the Board on March 23, 1991 including the name of Sh. Gupta or any other person, since there was no objection against the list of 19 eligible applicants/persons contained in Annex. 6 notified on March 19,1991.The petitioner's case further is that when the aforesaid mala fide and arbitrary action was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 to 4, further forgery has been committed in the official record of the Board by subsequently including the name of Sh. Bhairulal Gupta by pen and ink in the office copy of the list dated March 19, 1991, while the rest of the list is a typed one. This fact was seen by the then Chairman of the Board in the presence of the petitioner's father and the petitioner when they met him to make a complaint. The petitioner has stated that the Chairman of the Board was requested to rectify the mala fide and fraudulent action of respondent No. 3 and 4 and other officials of the Board and a representation in this connection was also served on him on 27th March, 1991. But, instead of rectifying the mistake and taking action against the subordinate officers of the Board, the Chairman told the petitioner that the wrong done could be corrected by a Court only.The petitioner has, therefore, prayed amongst others to allot him house No. 103/1 in Sector-10 after quashing the lottery in favour of Sh. Gupta in respect of the said house and in the alternative to quash the entire lottery drawn by the respondent on March 25, 1991 and to re-draw a fresh lottery in respect of 19 houses in Sector-10 after including only 19 eligible persons mentioned in the list Annex. 6. 8. On 7th May, 1991, the petitioner submitted one application in which it was further stated that after filing of the writ petition, the Board has published a notice bearing No. 108 dated April 12,1991, in the daily newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' of April 16, 1991 in which respondents No. 1 to 4 have clearly and unambiguously acknowledged that in the lottery drawn on March 25, 1991, the name of one person was added without publication of final list of eligible persons on March 23, 1991 and therefore, the Board proposed to cancel the said lottery. A photostat copy of the said publication has been placed on the record as Annex. 10.It was further stated in the said application that Sh. Bhairulal Gupta (respondent No. 5) had in-fact got himself registered in Parijat Category-1 in the second quarter of the year 1988 and not in Category-III. That some time in December, 1988, Sh. Bhairulal Gupta had filed two ante-dated applications bearing dates of the month of July, 1988 in which he had requested to change his registration from Parijat Category-I to Category-Ill and both these applications bear the endorsement of the Board's officials of the month of December, 1988. It was then stated that even if it is assumed that Sh. Gupta had filed the above two applications in the month of July, 1988, it was in the third quarter of the year 1988, as the third quarter had commenced from 1st July, 1988, though there is no provision for permitting any change in the Category subsequently. Even if such change is taken to be permissible, then, too, the respondent No. 5, at best, had applied for changing the Category in third quarter of the year 1988 and he could be registered for the third quarter of the year 1988. The cost of a house of Parijat-III with respect to the second quarter of the year 1988 was Rs. 1,49,656/- and the amount of four six-monthly instalments thereof was Rs. 37,414/-. The petitioner had deposited accordingly the total cost of the house amounting to Rs. 1,49,656/- which was relevant to the second quarter of the year 1988. The cost of a house of Parijat-III with respect of the third quarter of the year 1988 was Rs. 1,71,032/- and the amount of four six-monthly instalments was Rs. 42,758/-. In relation to respondent No. 5, the Board had determined the cost of the house at Rs. 1,71,032/- and the instalment amount at Rs. 42,758/- (six monthly) which was relevant to the third quarter of the year 1988 and the respondent No. 5 made the deposits accordingly. 9. The respondent No. I to 4 have filed a joint reply to the writ petition. While taking preliminary objections, it was given out that Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was registered under the' Kalptaru Scheme' and on June 24,1988 he submitted an application for conversion of his registration to 'Parijat Self Financing Scheme' for Parijat Category-I after depositing Rs. 9. The respondent No. I to 4 have filed a joint reply to the writ petition. While taking preliminary objections, it was given out that Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was registered under the' Kalptaru Scheme' and on June 24,1988 he submitted an application for conversion of his registration to 'Parijat Self Financing Scheme' for Parijat Category-I after depositing Rs. 20,000/- in the month of June, 1988 vide challan dated June 24, 1988. Thereafter, on July 29, 1988, he submitted an application to the Board for conversion from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-III, as such, he came to be registered in Category-III of second quarter of the year 1988. According to them, the respondent No. 5 was eligible-to be included.in the draw of lottery on 25th March, 1991.From the above reply, one thing is clear that the Board nowhere asserted that the Chairman of the Board had accorded sanction for the change of registration of Sh. Gupta from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-III, as well as, for the second quarter of the year 1988 or that the Dy. Housing Commissioner had issued any order to the respondent No. 5 on December 15, 1988 stating therein that permission for such change was accorded by the Chairman of the Board.Another important feature of the above reply is that this fact was not denied by the respondents that in the list of 19 eligible applicants, exhibited by the Board vide Annex. 6, the name of Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was not included. It is also not disputed that Sh. Gupta did not submit any objections to include his name in the list of eligible applicants. It is further not disputed that the Board had not exhibited the name of Sh. Gupta as a eligible person for a house in Category-Ill Of second quarter of 1988 in any list prior to the draw of lottery on March 25, 1991.For the 20th House in Sector No. 5, which was included in this draw, the plea of the respondents is that one house was left over in the draw of 1st quarter of 1988, as 12 houses were constructed and eleven persons were eligible when the draw of lottery was held on 16th Feb., 1991 and this surplus house was included in the draw of the lottery for second quarter of 1988 held on 25th March, 1991. 10. The respondent No. 5 Sh. 10. The respondent No. 5 Sh. Bhairulal Gupta also filed the reply to the writ petition on 17th May, 1991. In his reply, besides taking similar preliminary objections, it was pleaded inter-alia that he was registered under 'Kalrtaru Scheme' and on 24th June, 1988 he submitted an application to the Board for converged' of his registration from 'Kalptaru Scheme' to 'Parijat Scheme'. He has further stated that on July 29, 1988, he submitted another application to the Board to convert his category from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-III, and the change of category was allowed by the Board vide order dated December 15,1988. He has submitted a copy of the order dated 15.12.1988 (Annex.R-5/5) in this respect. According to this respondent, the conversion applied by him did not relate to change of the Category, but to the type of house in HIG Category. It is, however, not denied that on the notice board a list of only 19 eligible persons was notified for the draw of lots to be held on 25th March, 1991 for Parijat Category-III of second quarter of 1988 and in the said list his name was not included, but, according to him he was rightly included in the draw as he was eligible for the said Category. In short, the plea of this respondent is that initially he got the registration under Parijat Category-I after getting his conversion from 'Kalptaru Scheme' by moving an application on June 24,1988, but on his application dated 29th July, 1988, his registration was again changed from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-III by the order of the Board, dated Dec. 15, 1988. 11. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner along with an affidavit supporting the facts narrated in it. In the rejoinder, the reply to the preliminary objections has been given. While reiterating the plea taken in the writ petition, it was further stated that the alleged application dated 29th July, 1988 was in fact submitted sometime in the month of Dec. 1988 and it was antedated. In the rejoinder, the reply to the preliminary objections has been given. While reiterating the plea taken in the writ petition, it was further stated that the alleged application dated 29th July, 1988 was in fact submitted sometime in the month of Dec. 1988 and it was antedated. In the alternative, it has been pleaded that third quarter of 1988 commenced from 1st July, 1988 and even if such application is taken to have been submitted by the respondent on 29th July, 1988, it could be for the third quarter of 1988, though there is no provision to allow any change subsequently in the Scheme notified by the Board.With regard to house No. 56/10 in Sector No. 5, it was stated that it was for the first quarter of 1988-and the draw of lottery for that quarter was held on Feb. 16, 1991. Hence, this house could not have been included in the draw of the second quarter of 1988 as it was of lesser price while the applicants of second quarter were charged higher price. Then, it has been pleaded that the alleged letter dated 15th Dec. 1988 (Annex. R-5/5) is a fabricated and manipulated document, and was got issued by respondent No. 5 with active connivance of an official of the Board after the filing of the writ petition in order to support his false case. In support of this contention some circumstances have been narrated. In Para No. 10 of the rejoinder, the petitioner has given out that the respondent No. 5 is a close friend of one Sh. J.P. Sharma, who was the Branch Manager of the Extension Counter of the Central Bank of India, located and attached to the precincts of the office of the Board at Jaipur and had been in constant touch and contact with the officials of the Board, as all the money transactions of the Board, including the payments of the salaries to the staff etc. were being effected through the Extension Counter. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 5 with active assistance of Sh. J.P. Sharma, manipulated with Sh. Abdul Mateen, Deputy Housing Commissioner of the Board and got issued an ante-dated letter/order (Annex. R-5/5) purporting to bear 15th Dec., 1988 as the date and this has been done after the filing of the present writ petition. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 5 with active assistance of Sh. J.P. Sharma, manipulated with Sh. Abdul Mateen, Deputy Housing Commissioner of the Board and got issued an ante-dated letter/order (Annex. R-5/5) purporting to bear 15th Dec., 1988 as the date and this has been done after the filing of the present writ petition. It was further given-out that in the last week of April, 1991, after the result of the lottery was published, the petitioner had met respondent No. 2 in his chamber and with his permission inspected the file relating to the registration of respondent No. 5 in his presence and in that file or in the note-sheet of that file, neither there war any approval of the Chairman of the Board for converting the registration of respondent No. 5, from Parijat Category-I to Category-III nor there was any office copy of the order/letter (Annex. R-5/5) in that file. Several other facts have also been mentioned in the rejoins--r which will be stated while discussing and considering the points raised in the course of arguments. 12. On May 28, 1991, the petitioner submitted an application to call certain files/records mentioned in the said application from the office of the Board. 13. 'respondent it No. 1 to 5 also filed the reply to the rejoinder. 14. From the pleadings of the parties and the various documents filed on the record,,the following facts are not in dispute (i) 'Parijat Scheme' is a self-financing scheme and the applicants who were already registered in MIG/HIG Category with the Board were entitled to get registered in the same. The registered applicants under 'Kalpiru Scheme' were also permitted to get conversion of their registration in this Scheme. (ii) The registration in 'Parijat Scheme' could be in any of the three categories, namely, Parijat Category-I, Parijat Category-II, and Parijat Category-III. Each category of parijat Scheme' was further divided in four quarters in a year. Second quarter of the year 1988 commenced from 1st April, 1988 ending on 30th June, 1988 and the registered applicants for each quarter formed a separate class for the purposes of construction and pricing of the houses. (iii) For second quarter of 1988, in Parijat Category-III, there were only 19 applicants including the petitioner. As it was a self-financing scheme, only 19 houses were undertaken by the Board to be constructed for them. (iii) For second quarter of 1988, in Parijat Category-III, there were only 19 applicants including the petitioner. As it was a self-financing scheme, only 19 houses were undertaken by the Board to be constructed for them. (iv) Respondent No. 5, who was also registered under 'Kalptaru Scheme' applied on 24th June, 1988 for his conversion in Parijat Category-I and not in Parijat Category-III. (v) On March 19,1991, a list of 19 eligible persons under Parijat Category - III for second quarter of the year 1988 was notified on the notice board of the Housing Board as per the procedure earlier notified. In that list, the name of the petitioner was included while the name of respondent No. 5 was not there. (vi) Objections were called against the aforesaid list. No objection was filed by any person, including the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name in the list, as such, no further list was published by the Board on 23rd March, 1991. (vii) On 25th march,1991, lottery was drawn for the allotment of houses in Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of 1988. The name of respondent No. 5 was included in the draw and one house bearing No. 56/10 in Sector No. 5, having lesser area of plot size and of different pattern and design, was included in 19 houses, which were constructed for 19 eligible applicants/persons. The said house was of first quarter of 1988, the lottery of which was drawn on Feb. 16,1991. This house was declared surplus as there remained only 11 persons eligible to participate in it. (viii) On 26th March, 1991, a representation was made by the petitioner to the Chairman of the Board. On this representation, the Chairman was satisfied that the name of respondent No. 5 Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was wrongly included in the draw without showing his name in the list of eligible persons and the draw was liable to be vitiated. 15. If the prayer of the petitioner had been limited to the extent of cancelling the aforesaid draw, I would have decided the writ petition on the basis of the above undisputed facts.From these facts it is clear that as per the programme published in the newspaper Annex: 5, a list of 19 eligible candidates/applicants was notified (Annex. 6) for calling objections against them. In the said list, the name of respondent No. 5 was not included. 6) for calling objections against them. In the said list, the name of respondent No. 5 was not included. No objection was filed by him or any other person to include his name ort the ground of his being eligible in Parijat Category-III for second quarter of 1988. Subsequently also, no list was ever notified/published by the Board showing the name of respondent No. 5 as a eligible candidate/person, but still his name was included in the draw. Thus, inclusion of name of Sh. Bhairulal Gupta, respondent No. 5 was against the notified programme and procedure issued by the Board and, as such, the draw stood vitiated on account of lapses in the pre-lottery procedure. 16. It is no doubt true that the Board is an autonomous body in its working, but it also equally true that it is a statutory public institution engaged in matters of public functions. If the functions of a statutory body or corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it can be classified as an instrumentality or agency of government.In Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram, (1995) 1 SCC 421 , it has been observed as under : "Institutions engaged in matters of high public interest or public functions are by virtue of the nature of the functions performed Government agencies." This view has been reiterated again in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489 The following observations of Mathew, J, in V. Punnan Thomas v. State of Kerala, 1969 Kerala 81 have been agreed with in International Airport. Authority's case (supra) : 'The Government, is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largesse. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratise Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal." It has also been observed as under in International Airport Authority's case (supra) "It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be vigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. It has been then observed:- "It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the publication of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affection of some right or denial of some privilege." In Kisturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, (1980) 4 SCC 1 Bhagwati, J. reiterated the view taken in International Airport Authority's case supra), and observe as under : 'The discretion of the Government has been held to be not unlimited in that the Government cannot give largess in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will or on such terms as it chooses in its absolute discretion. There are two limitations imposed by law which structure and control the discretion of the Government in this behalf. The first is in regard to the terms on which larges may be granted and the other, in regard to the persons who may be recipients of such largess' (Emphasis supplied)It has been further observed : "So far the first limitation is concerned, it flows directly from the thesis that, unlike a private individual, the State cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess. Though ordinarily a private individual would be guided by economic considerations of self-gain in any action taken by him, it is always open to him under the law to act contrary to his self-interest or to oblige another in entering into a contract or dealing with his property. But the Government is not free to act as it likes in granting largess such as awarding a contract or selling or leasing out its property. Whatever be its activity, the Government is still the Government and is, subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic society. The constitutional power conferred on the Government cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner; it has to be exercised for the public good. Whatever be its activity, the Government is still the Government and is, subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic society. The constitutional power conferred on the Government cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner; it has to be exercised for the public good. Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touch-stone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid." In Kasturilal's case (supra) it has been further observed that any Government action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest also, it would be liable to be struck-down as invalid.In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Bombay Port Trust, (1989) 3 SCC 293 it has been held that all actions including contractual dealings of a 'State' within article 12 of the Constitution are subject to judicial review. It has been further held that every action of the State or as an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason, and must satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest. 17. Applying the aforesaid test, it cannot be disputed that the respondent Board acted in arbitrariness in including the name of Sh. Bhairulal Gupta, respondent No. 5, in the draw of the lottery held on 25th March, 1991 without exhibiting his name in the list of eligible candidates/applicants as required in the notification/publication (Annex. 6). This action of the Board, therefore, stands vitiated and consequently, the result of the lottery also stands vitiated. 18. Before adverting to the essential question as to whether respondent No. 5 Sh. 6). This action of the Board, therefore, stands vitiated and consequently, the result of the lottery also stands vitiated. 18. Before adverting to the essential question as to whether respondent No. 5 Sh. Bhairulal Gupta was eligible in Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of 1988, or whether he was registered in the said Category for second quarter of 1988 or not, which has been seriously contested before me, I would like to take up the preliminary objections raised by respondents.The first and the foremost objection in this connection is that all the registered applicants/persons who were included in the lottery are necessary parties in the writ and in their absence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.On this matter, it is not disputed that after the draw of the lottery, the petitioner made a representation on 26th March, 1991 challenging the said lottery and the respondent-Board did not issue any letter of allotment/possession of the houses. In the meantime, the writ petition has been filed challenging the draw of the lottery after including the name of respondent No. 5. In such a situation whether other persons are also necessary parties has been considered by this Court in Mrs. Shakuntla v. Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur 1981 RLW 398 Placing reliance on a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paradise Printers, Chandigarh v. The Union Territory Chandigarh, AIR 1981 P and H 30 , it has been held that where lots are drawn for allotment of plots but no letters are issued, the mere draw of lots does not create any right in favour of successful persons for holding them to be necessary parties in the writ.In the instant case, I have held above that the name of respondent No. 5 Sh. Gupta, was included in the draw of the lottery in a arbitrary manner, even though, his name was not notified in the list of eligible candidates/persons entitled to participate in it, as such, the draw stood invalidated. The Board has also not issued any letter of allotment/ possession to the successful persons. Hence, I am of the view that all those other persons are not necessary parties and the writ cannot be dismissed on this ground. 19. The Board has also not issued any letter of allotment/ possession to the successful persons. Hence, I am of the view that all those other persons are not necessary parties and the writ cannot be dismissed on this ground. 19. Another preliminary question is that the petitioner had participated in the entire lottery procedure on 25th March, 1991 but did not put any grievance/protest in the inclusion of the name of Sh. Bhairulal Gupta respondent No. 5 in the draw, as such, he is estopped from challenging the result of the lottery on the principles of acquiescence.In reply to the said objection, the petitioner has stated in the rejoinder that he had no role in the draw of the lottery held on 25th March, 1991. He has further stated that feeding in the computer of the programme was made by respondent No. l to 4 and not by him, as such, he could not have any knowledge at the time of draw that the name of any ineligible person was wrongly included, or that a person, whose name was not included and published in the list of eligible persons vide Annex.-6, was included in the draw.In my view, the doctrine of acquiescence cannot have any application in a situation like the present one. This doctrine ne arise only where a person in full knowledge of his rights a. J of the conduct infringing them, allows the person to infringe and does not object and leads the person infringing to believe that he has waived or abandoned his right.On March 19, 1991, a list of eligible candidates was published/ notified on the notice board and the Board had notified the procedure vide Annex. 5 that only those eligible candidates/persons shall be included in the draw of the lottery, as such, if any ineligible person /candidate was included at the time of draw without any intimation to or knowledge of the petitioner, no question-of any acquiescence arises on the part of the petitioner. Hence, this objection is also over-ruled. 20. Yet another preliminary objection is that the respondent-Board has issued a public Notice No. 108 dated April 12, 1991 that it proposed to cancel the draw on the ground of non-publication of final list of eligible persons/candidates on 23rd March, 1991, and the Board was to take a final decision, but still the writ petition has been filed without waiting for decision. In other words, the cause of action to challenge the draw did not arise to the petitioner till the matter is decided by the Board in pursuance to the said notice.In my view, this objection has also no merit.The petitioner has filed this writ petition on April 11, 1991 and after filing of the writ petition, the aforesaid notice has been issued by the Board. The cause of action arose to the petitioner against the arbitrary action of respondent-Board on the very day when the draw of the lottery was held against the procedure notified by the Board.In International Airport Authority's case (supra) and other judgments referred above, the Apex Court of the country has held that this Court can judge the action of the respondents on the test of arbitrariness, reasonableness and public interest. No doubt, the Board is also competent to cancel the lottery in a manner it may think proper, but the right of the petitioner to challenge the said action in a court of law is independent to that of any action that might have been taken by the Board. More so, when the petitioner had already filed the writ petition before such notice was issued by the Board and the matter has been argued before me on merits at length. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the eligibility of respondent No. 5 in Parijat Category-III for second quarter of 1988. Including of an unequal amongst equals violates Article-14 of the Constitution, as such, the petitioner can challenge the action of the respondent-Board under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.20-A. The essential question now remains to be decided is as to whether respondent No. 5 was registered in Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of the year 1988 so as to be entitled in the participation of the draw of the lottery meant for that Category.As already discussed above, respondent No. 5 was initially registered in 'Kalptaru Scheme' and on June 24, 1988 he applied for registration in Parijat Category-I after conversion from 'Kalptaru Scheme'. The case of respondent No. 5 is that he had moved an application to the Chairman of the Board on 29th July, 1988 to convert his registration from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-Ill and in pursuance to the said application, the Board vide order dated Dec. 15, 1988 converted his registration in Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of the year 1988. 15, 1988 converted his registration in Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of the year 1988. According to him, a copy of the order Annex.R-5/5 was received by him. Thus, as per the respondent No. 5, the source of his change of registration from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of 1988 is the said order.On the other hand, the petitioner has come-out with a strong challenge to the aforesaid order and according to him, the alleged order/letter Annex.R-5/5 is a document which has been fabricated and manipulated subsequently in connivance with high ups of the Board. As this allegation was of serious nature, I had asked the counsel for the Board to make available the relevant file/record for the perusal of this Court. The learned counsel for the Board placed before me the personal file of respondent No. 5-Sh. Gupta, and also produced office file of Dy. Housing Commissioner (Headquarter), as well as, a dispatch register of Dy. Housing Commissioner (Headquarter) of 1988.After the conclusion of the arguments, the learned counsel for the Board produced one more file and contended that a policy decision was taken by the Board permitting the conversion and in pursuance to the said policy decision, order was issued by Dy. Housing Commissioner (Headquarter) on 15th December, 1988.I will deal later-on as to whether any policy decision was taken by the Board or not as raised subsequently by the learned counsel for the Board. Presently, I proceed to deal as to whether the order/letter dated December 15, 1988 alleged to have been issued by the Dy. Housing Commissioner of the Board has been subsequently prepared in the back date to help respondent No. 5. This question assumes importance as this is the basis through which respondent No. 5 claims that his registration was converted from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-III for second quarter of the year 1988. 21. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on this question and have minutely gone through the files which have been placed before me by the learned counsel for the Board.The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged a number of circumstances before me to show that the of aforesaid letter/order dated 15th December, 1988 (Annex.R-5/5) issued by the Dy. Housing Commissioner (Headquarter) is a forged document and the same has been prepared subsequently. Housing Commissioner (Headquarter) is a forged document and the same has been prepared subsequently. I have considered those circumstances in the light of the record produced before me. Some of the circumstances which are clearly borne-out from the record and the pleadings of the parties may be described as under : (i) The Board in its initial reply to the writ petition did not come-out with a case that any order was passed by the Board or by the Chairman of the Board according sanction for the Conversion. On the other hand, the plea of the Board is that respondent No. 5 Sh. Gupta had applied for conversion from 'Kalptaru Scheme' to Parijat Category-I on 24.6.1988 and thereafter, he submitted an application for further conversion from Parijat Category-I to Parijat Category-III, as such, he came to be registered in Parijat Category-Ill of second quarter of 1988; (ii) The letter/order dated 15.12.1988 (Annex.R-5/5) is said to be based on the sanction accorded by the Chairman of the Board. Such permission or sanction accorded in favour of the respondent No. 5-Sh. Gupta has not been produced on the record by the respondents; (iii) In the file of Sh. Gupta, maintained by the Board in this connection, there is no order of the Chairman or of the Board according sanction/permission for the conversion. In the order-sheets maintained by the Board in the said file also there is no mention that any sanction/permission was accorded by the Chairman or by the Board for the conversion or that any such letter/order was issued by Dy. Housing Commissioner on 15.12.1988 or any other date. A copy of the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 is also not available in the said file; (iv) In the file of the respondent No. 5, there is a photostat copy of an application dated 29th July, 1988. On this application, neither any date of receipt nor inward number is mentioned, but on the top of this application, there is endorsement dated 26th Dec. 1988 indicating that this application first time came to be dealt with on this date. In the order-sheet maintained in the file at page-22 also, there is no such mention that the application was received on 29.7.1988. The respondent Board did not produce any entry in the inward register of the Board showing that this application was received by it on 29th July, 1988. In the order-sheet maintained in the file at page-22 also, there is no such mention that the application was received on 29.7.1988. The respondent Board did not produce any entry in the inward register of the Board showing that this application was received by it on 29th July, 1988. The endorsement made on the said application, in the absence of inward number and other circumstances narrated above, create a doubt that in-fact this application was moved by respondent No. 5 and received by the Board on 29.7.1988; ((v) There is one more photostat copy of an application of respondent No. 5 Sh. Gupta, which is also dated 29.7.1988 but addressed to Dy. Housing Commissioner. On this application also, the only endorsement made on the top is dated 17.12.1988 which shows that this application was dealt first time on 17.12.1988; (vi) The first order-sheet which has been drawn in the file of respondent No. 5 is dated 29th May, 1989 and it reads as under: Jh xqIrk ds dYir: 88 esa mPp vk; oxZ esa ithadj.k djok;k Fkk mUgksusa ikfjtkr@88@111@v@r`rh; esa viuk fodYi fn;k gSA vr% vkj{k.k i= nLr[kr gsrq izLrqr gSA This order-sheet completely over-rules the plea that any order of the Chairman or of the Board was passed on 15.12.1988 sanctioning conversion to Parijat Category - III for second quarter of 1988. Had there been any such order of the Chairman/Board or if any such order dated 15.12.1988 had been issued by the Board, it would have been mentioned in this order-sheet. This order sheet indicates that the application of Sh. Gupta addressed to the Chairman or to the Dy. Housing Commissioner having an endorsement on the top dated 26.12.1988 and 17.12.1988 respectively was dealt first time in the office of the Board on 29th May, 1989 and it speaks that he has submitted his option for Parijat Category-III of third quarter of 1988. This order sheet contains signatures of several officers of the Board and below their signatures, the date has been given as 29.5.1989. The learned counsel also conceded before me that the order-sheet must have been drawn on 295.89. If so, it completely belies the case put by the respondents that conversion was sanctioned by the Chairman/Board in the month of Dec. 1988. On this order sheet also there is no sanction or signature of the Chairman. The learned counsel also conceded before me that the order-sheet must have been drawn on 295.89. If so, it completely belies the case put by the respondents that conversion was sanctioned by the Chairman/Board in the month of Dec. 1988. On this order sheet also there is no sanction or signature of the Chairman. (vii) From the file, it further appears that in pursuance to above order-sheet the Board had issued a registered letter on 29.5.1989 to respondent No. 5 showing that he was registered in Parijat Category-III. This letter relates to registration for third quarter of 1988, as six monthly instalment was fixed as Rs. 42,758.00 which is of the third quarter of 1988, which was fixed on the basis of the price of the house for third quarter of 1988. Had there been any order in favour of the respondent No. 5, Sh. Gupta, sanctioning the conversion for second quarter of 1988 then there was hardly any occasion for the Board to have issued the registration in Parijat Category-Ill for third quarter of 1988, as in that case it would have been for second quarter of 1988 with six monthly instalment of Rs. 37,414.00; (viii) If respondent - Sh. Gupta has received the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 (Annex.R-5/5) then he would have objected then and there against his registration in Parijat Category-Ill for third quarter of 1988 and would not have deposited the instalments. of a house for third quarter of 1988, which he has deposited on 12.10.1989, 24.4.1990 and 23.7.1990. The very fact that he deposited all the three instalments pertaining to the house of third quarter of 1988 also belies the issuance of the order dated 15.12.1988; (ix) Not only this, the respondent Sh. Gupta has written letters to the Board on 7.5.1990, 12.9.90 and 10.11.1990 and in those letters he has stated about the deposit of the instalments. In these letters also, he did not state that his conversion was made for the second quarter of 1988 in Parijat Category-III or that the order Annex.R-5/5 was issued by the Dy. Housing Commissioner, as such, instalments of a house of third quarter of 1988 has been wrongly taken from him and refund should be made to him. These letters also indicate that no such order dated 15.12.1988 was ever issued to him as pleaded by him and the Board subsequently. Housing Commissioner, as such, instalments of a house of third quarter of 1988 has been wrongly taken from him and refund should be made to him. These letters also indicate that no such order dated 15.12.1988 was ever issued to him as pleaded by him and the Board subsequently. The learned counsel for the,respondents No. 5 was asked by me to explain as why he did not disclose at any time that his conversion for a house of second quarter of 1988 in Parijat Category-III was made vide order/letter dated 15.12.1988 (Annex. R-5/5) and why did he deposited the instalments of third quarter of 1988, but he was unable to explain. The second order-sheet dated 10th Aug. 1989 available in the aforesaid file is as under : " Jh xqIrk ds dYir: 88@mPp c esa iathdj.k djok;k Fkk mUgksaus ikfjtkr 88@11@v@izFke gsrq viuk vkosnu i= Hkjk Fkk ijUrq dk;kZy; dh Hkwy ls mUgsa twu DokVj dh txg flrEcj DokVj dh ykxr yxkdj vkj{k.k i= tkjh dj fn;k x;k ftldh izFke fdLr tek Hkh djok nh gS vr% vkns'k gks rks mUgsa twu DokVj dh ykxr dk vkj{k.k i= tkjh dj fn;k tkos i=koyh voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA " There are signatures of some officers on this order-sheet, but no final order appears to have been passed on this order-sheet according permission/sanction for issuance of registration letter for second quarter of 1988.If the Board had already accorded sanction/ permission in favour of respondent-Sh. Gupta for the aforesaid conversion vide order dated 15.12.1988 there was hardly any necessity of this order-sheet. Even if such order-sheet was drawn, the officers of the Board, who had put their signatures on the order-sheet, would have corrected it or mentioned the fact that the permission/sanction was already accorded in favour of the respondent No. 5 on 15th December, 1988.This again shows that up to 10th August, 1989, there was no order in favour of respondent No. 5 sanctioning the conversion and that no order dated 15.12.1988 (Annex.R-5/5) was issued by Dy. Housing Commissioner on that date; (x) When a list of eligible candidates/persons was published /notified by the Board on 19.3.1991, the respondent No. 5 did not raise any objection against the said list even though his name was not included in it. Housing Commissioner on that date; (x) When a list of eligible candidates/persons was published /notified by the Board on 19.3.1991, the respondent No. 5 did not raise any objection against the said list even though his name was not included in it. Had the conversion was already made on 15.12.1988, he would have put his objections along with a copy of the said order. The above circumstances are not only weighty but telling circumstances and leave no doubt in my mind that the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 has been subsequently prepared to help respondent No. 5 for the defence of his case. 22. The learned counsel for the Board has also referred the office file of Dy. Housing Commissioner and the dispatch register of the Dy. Housing Commissioner of the year 1988 to show that the letter dated 15.12.1988 contains the serial number of the office of the Dy. Housing Commissioner and it has been mentioned in the dispatch register. I heard the learned counsel of the parties , in reference to the above file and dispatch register also and I also perused them minutely. I also perused the file of Board connected with the draw of the lottery of the houses for second quarter of 1988 in Parijat Category-III held on 25.3.1991.I would not like to comment much about the office file of Dy. Housing Commissioner, but from the perusal of the said file it appears that the numbering of the pages in that file has been made by one person at one time and the numbering of the pages was not made as and when the document was inserted in the file. If the numbering of the page/pages had been done at the time when the same was/were inserted in the file, it would have some authenticity. In not doing so, any document prepared subsequently could be inserted very easily at a place showing that it was issued earlier. Similar is the situation of the dispatch register. The dispatch register also does not inspire any confidence as a bare perusal of the same shows that this possibility cannot be ruled-out that it has been prepared subsequently. However, it is a matter of an enquiry and investigation. Similar is the situation of the dispatch register. The dispatch register also does not inspire any confidence as a bare perusal of the same shows that this possibility cannot be ruled-out that it has been prepared subsequently. However, it is a matter of an enquiry and investigation. But from these documents no inference can be drawn that the letter/order dated 15.12.1988 was dispatched to the respondent No. 5 on that very day, especially when the circumstances narrated earlier are clinching and telling to establish that the letter/order was not issued on 15.12.1988. It is also noteworthy that office file of Dy. Housing Commissioner and the dispatch register have been produced before me much after the arguments were concluded.When asked to produce the original file/ files of the Board in which financial and technical sanction for construction of 19 houses pertaining to Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of 1988 in Sector-10 was granted, the same was not made available by the learned counsel for the Board stating that the same is not traceable. However, Mr. Gupta has produced before me one file relating to the draw of the lottery held on 25.3.1991 in relation to Parijat Category-I and Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of 1988.At the outset, I may say that this file appears to have been arranged subsequently after re-adjusting the documents. This possibility cannot be ruled-out that some papers, which may go against, might have been taken-out from the file. Normally, in such files, the earliest document is placed at the bottom and subsequent documents are placed date-wise as and when they are received. But the documents have not been placed on the file in this order or even date-wise. Be that as it may, in the office-copy of the eligible candidates which is dated 19.3.1991, the name of 19 persons/candidates are typed and name of Sh. Gupta has been subsequently added in ink by a pen. Admittedly, the name of Sh. Gupta was not in the list of 19.3.1991 which was issued/notified by the Board. Under what circumstances and at whose orders, the name of Sh. Gupta was written in the office copy could not be explained by the learned counsel for the Board. There is no doubt in my mind that the name of Sh. Gupta has been included after 19.3.1991 in order to include his name in the draw of lottery. Under what circumstances and at whose orders, the name of Sh. Gupta was written in the office copy could not be explained by the learned counsel for the Board. There is no doubt in my mind that the name of Sh. Gupta has been included after 19.3.1991 in order to include his name in the draw of lottery. This is also a serious matter, as the public institutions like the Housing Board are expected to act honestly and in a fair manner. It is important to note that respondent No. 5 in para 13 of his reply has not disputed the fact that his name was not included in the list of 19 eligible registered applicants pasted by the Board on the notice - board on March 19,1991. It is also not disputed by the respondents in their reply that in the list of eligible registered applicants for Category-III houses for second quarter of 1988 published and pasted on the notice board of the Rajasthan Housing Board on March 19,1991-only 19 names (including that of the petitioner) were notified and that the name of respondent"No. 5 did not find place in that list. How could a subsequent addition at all be made in the office copy of the list of eligible registered candidates published on 19th March, 1991 which contained the names of 19 persons by adding the name of respondent No. 5 with pen in typed list. It is nothing short of forgery. Then, there is a letter of the Resident Engineer addressed to the State Manager, Jaipur Circle-11 dated 25.2.1991 and from this letter it is clear that only 19 houses of the plot size 10 x 20 meters in Sector-10 were made available for allotment to the persons and as per this letter, only 19 persons/applicants were to be allotted house. How and under what circumstances, house No. 56/10 and at whose orders came to be included in the draw of the lottery is also a serious question which could not be explained by the learned counsel for the Board. 23. The case may be judged from another angle also.It is not disputed before me that in the second quarter of 1988 in Parijat Category-II there were only 19 applicants after excluding the name of respondent No. 5. It is also not disputed that 19 houses were undertaken for construction for those applicants in Sector-10. 23. The case may be judged from another angle also.It is not disputed before me that in the second quarter of 1988 in Parijat Category-II there were only 19 applicants after excluding the name of respondent No. 5. It is also not disputed that 19 houses were undertaken for construction for those applicants in Sector-10. Parijat Scheme is a self financing scheme with a time bound programme. The costing of the house is also done as per the house constructed for each quarter. So, the essence of this Scheme is that a particular number of houses are constructed in each Category for each quarter. It is also not disputed that a house for respondent No. 5 was not constructed along with the other applicants of second quarter of 1988. After the completion of the registration and having undertaken the construction of a particular number of house as per registration, addition of other persons subsequently for that quarter is against the basic and essential concept of this Scheme and if it is made permissible, then, the Scheme itself becomes unworkable. That is why there is no provision in the Parijat Scheme issued/published by the Board (Annex. 2) permitting subsequent conversion and inclusion of the names of the persons in different Category. It is also not disputed that there is a price difference in the house constructed for second quarter and a house constructed for third quarter. It is also not disputed that house No. 56/10 in Sector-V has lesser area in size and it said to be inferior in other respects also in comparison to 19 houses which have been constructed for the applicants of second quarter of 1988. The matter may be illustrated by a concrete example in the present case. There were 19 applicants/persons registered in the second quarter of 1988 and suppose subsequently at a late stage 10 persons of Parijat Category-I are permitted to change the Category-III for the second quarter of 1988 at a later stage, the Scheme shall be unworkable, in as much as, 29 persons cannot be allotted houses as only 19 houses have been undertaken for construction. If subsequently, 10 more houses are undertaken for construction, then, the time bound programme cannot be fulfilled and the possibility of price escalation also cannot be ruled-out. 24. If subsequently, 10 more houses are undertaken for construction, then, the time bound programme cannot be fulfilled and the possibility of price escalation also cannot be ruled-out. 24. Now, the last submission urged by the learned counsel for the Board may also be examined and discussed.After the conclusion of the arguments, the learned counsel for the Board produced a file before me to come-out with a case that there was a policy decision of the Board permitting the conversion from one category to another category of Parijat Scheme. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in relation to the said file which was made available for inspection in the Court. This file contains two pages, one letter of respondent No. 5 and a copy of the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 issued by the Dy. Housing Commissioner. Though, this file has been brought much after the arguments were heard and that too in an unusual manner, but still I have given my utmost consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Board and the learned counsel for the petitioner in relation to the said file, and I am of the view that no assistance can be derived by the Board from this file. Some of the reasons are as under (i) It was never the case of the Board or of the respondent No. 5 that a policy decision was taken by the Board permitting the conversion from one category to another category and that the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 was issued by Dy. Housing Commissioner in pursuance to the said policy decision of the Board. (ii) Had there been such policy decision or such policy decision has been acted upon or the letter/order dated 15.12.1988 was issued in pursuance to the said policy decision, it is un-thinkable that such policy decision would not have seen the light of the day till this file was produced before me. (iii) If the letter/order dated 15.12.1988 was issued in pursuance to the said policy decision, then a copy of the order would have been placed in the file of respondent No. 5. Then, the order-sheets available in that file dated 29.5.1989 and 8th Aug., 1989 would not have been drawn and there would have been a reference of the said policy decision, especially when the said order-sheets have been signed by high ups of the Board. Then, the order-sheets available in that file dated 29.5.1989 and 8th Aug., 1989 would not have been drawn and there would have been a reference of the said policy decision, especially when the said order-sheets have been signed by high ups of the Board. (iv) A perusal of the file shows, firstly, that there is an interpolation by ink at the first page of the note-sheet, in as much as, originally the name of Sh.'Bajranglal' Gupta was typed but later on by pen instead of the word Bajrang', the word 'Bhairu' was changed by pen and there is no signature of any person who made this change in the note-sheet. Then it is very pertinent to be noted from para 10 of the note-sheet that the alleged application for conversion from Category-I to Category - III, whether the application might be that of Bajrang Lal or Bhairu Lal was specifically and categorically rejected by the Chairman. No letter like letter/order dated 15.12.1988 could be issued by the Deputy Housing Commissioner (Headquarter) in respect of an application which was specifically rejected by the Chairman. No assistance can be taken by the respondent Board from the noting in para No. 12 which has been consented by the Chairman. I have gone through the said para No. 12 which is only a proposal and for this proposal the Chairman had also consented, but there is nothing further on the record to show that any policy decision was taken in this connection by the Board and if so, what are the terms and circumstances and up to what date such conversion was permissible. There is also nothing on the record that any such policy decision has ever been published/notified by the Board for the information of all the applicants. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent could not satisfy me as to how the Chairman alone was competent to take such policy decision. The policy decision has to be taken either by the Board or by the Property Allotment Committee, but in no case by mere putting such proposal and the Chairman consenting to such proposal it becomes a policy decision. (v) Had there been any such policy decision, it would have been notified /published to be made known to all and the change would have been introduced in the Parijat Scheme notified by the Board. (v) Had there been any such policy decision, it would have been notified /published to be made known to all and the change would have been introduced in the Parijat Scheme notified by the Board. (vi) This file contains an application dated 29.7.1988 alleged to have been made by Sh. Bhairulal. There is no inward number on this application as to when this was received and by whom it was received. A copy of this application is included in the personal file of respondent No. 5 maintained by the Board. On the top of that application, there is endorsement dated 17.12.1988, about which I have already dealt with at length in the preceding paragraphs. (vii) It is also pertinent to be noted that as a matter of fact only one application dated 29.7.1988 in its original form was made by Sh. Bhairu Lal Gupta and the same was addressed to the Chairman of the Board and to none-else. The mis-chief played in relation to this application was that this application was that from this one original application, two photostat copies were prepared. One photostat copy was allowed to remain addressed to the Chairman. Then in the original application, the word 'Chairman' was scored out and in his place 'the Deputy Housing Commissioner' was written by a different handwriting. After making this change in single original application, another photostat copy was photoed out and thus two photostat copies were prepared and two differently addressed photostat copies of single original application were placed on the file of Bhairulal Gupta. It was the original application of Bhairulal Gupta as so altered by ink which was used by the Dy. Housing Commissioner for issuing the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 and that also after its clear rejection by the Chairman, that is why the original application addressed to the Chairman is not available in any file. (viii) The learned counsel with a subsequent application has also filed a list of eight persons to whom letters are said to have been issued under certificate of posting to show that the letter/order was sent to the respondent No.5 on 15.12. L. 1R. Suffice to say that on such documents much reliance cannot be placed in view of the various reasons given earlier that the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 was not in existence even on that date. L. 1R. Suffice to say that on such documents much reliance cannot be placed in view of the various reasons given earlier that the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 was not in existence even on that date. This possibility cannot be ruled-out that this document has been prepared or got prepared subsequently. The paper on which names of eight persons, including that of respondent No. 5, is written on which two postal stamps of 30 paisa are affixed does not bear any post office stamps affixed on postal tickets. It is a common knowledge and elementary too that when letters are dispatched by post under certificate of posting, the seal of the post office is affixed on the postal stamps so that postal stamps may not be misused again. From what I have discussed above and after going through the entire relevant files which have been produced before me by the learned counsel for the Board, I am fully convinced that the order/letter dated 15.12.1988 has been prepared subsequently to justify the inclusion of the name of respondent No. 5 in the draw of lottery held on 25.3.1991, and this possibility cannot be ruled-out, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the same has been prepared after filing of the writ petition, otherwise, there is no reason as to why in all the concerned files or the order-sheets maintained in these files, there is no disclosure of this order/letter. Even in the order sheets which have been drawn subsequently in the file pertaining to the draw of lottery held on 25.3.1991, there is no mention about this letter/order dated 15.12.1988. 25. From the above discussions, I have no -difficulty in holding that the respondent No. 5 Sh. Gupta was not a registered applicant under Parijat Category-III for second quarter of the year 1988 and his name could no" nave been included in the draw of the lottery held on 25.3.1991. 26. Last question, still a complex question, remains to be decided is with regard to the relief which should be granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. House No. 103/1 in Sector-10 has fallen to the respondent No. 5 from the draw of lottery held on 25th March, 1991. 26. Last question, still a complex question, remains to be decided is with regard to the relief which should be granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. House No. 103/1 in Sector-10 has fallen to the respondent No. 5 from the draw of lottery held on 25th March, 1991. I have held that respondent No. 5 could not be registered applicant in Parijat Category-III for second quarter of the year 1988 and the same rendered him ineligible to participate in the above draw of lottery. Consequently, house No. 103/1 in Sector-10, which was meant for eligible persons for the said draw, could not be allotted to him. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents No.1 to 4 be,directed to allot him house No. 103/1 in Sector-10 after excluding respondent No. 5. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that the entire draw of lottery drawn on March 25, 1991 be quashed and a fresh draw be made in respect of 19 houses in Sector-10 amongst the 19 registered applicants mentioned in the list Annex.-6 after excluding respondent No. 5 from the same.If respondent No. 5 had been eligible to participate in the draw and the results of the lottery had been vitiated on account of procedural irregularities/lapses, then, the only course would have been open for me to direct the respondent-Board to make a fresh draw of the lottery. Otherwise also, after holding that the draw stands vitiated on account of inclusion of respondent No. 5 in the said draw, normally, afresh draw of lottery has to be ordered. But this may deviated if the equity so demands and the other affected persons also so desire. In the instant case, there are 19 eligible persons entitled to get 19 houses so constructed by the Board in Sector-10 for Parijat Category-Ill for second quarter of the year 1988. These houses have been constructed on the finances provided by them and they are the beneficiaries/ recipients of those houses. The Board has no interest that any particular house should be allotted in the name of a particular applicant. Therefore, the wishes of these persons, who are the recipients of those houses, also carry weight and due regard should be given to their wishes, while passing the final order in relation to those houses. The Board has no interest that any particular house should be allotted in the name of a particular applicant. Therefore, the wishes of these persons, who are the recipients of those houses, also carry weight and due regard should be given to their wishes, while passing the final order in relation to those houses. From the facts narrated earlier it is evident that pursuant to the notice No. 108 dated April 12,1991 published by the Board proposing to cancel the lottery in question, most of the remaining 18 eligible persons have submitted their objections to the Board which reflect their desire. The Board has filed the copies of those objections. From the perusal of those objections, one thing is clear that they are not interested in a fresh draw of lottery' and they are satisfied from the house which has fallen in their share as a result of the draw held on March 25, 1991. They have also expressed that for the fault of any officer or staff member of the Board they should be made suffer and penal action be taken against such officers/staff members. In short, the desire of the other eligible persons/applicants is that the entire lottery should not be quashed and they should not be disturbed in the matter of allotment of the particular house which has fallen in their share in the draw. If other eligible persons are satisfied with their respective houses which have fallen in their share in the draw and if the petitioner is agreeable to take the house No. 103/1 in Sector-10, which was meant for the draw in-question but illegally had fallen in the share of respondent No. 5 on account of inclusion of his name in the draw, then the equity demands that the order should be to cancel the lottery in relation to house No. 103/1 in favour of respondent No. 5 and to direct the respondent-Board to allot the said house to the petitioner and give him the possession of the same. By such order, every-body shall feel satisfied as it will cause injury to none. By such order, every-body shall feel satisfied as it will cause injury to none. Otherwise, if a fresh lottery is directed, it would not only further delay the matter unnecessarily in the allotment and delivery of possession of the houses, which has already been much delayed than the times bound programme, it might unnecessarily lead to fresh litigation by any of the remaining 18 eligible persons, who is not interested in a fresh draw of lottery. The petitioner has also claimed interest @ 16% per annum from 1st July, 1990 on the total amount of the four instalments deposited by him till the date of allotment and delivery of the house. In respect to this claim, the Board has admitted in para No. 5 of its reply that in case the Board fails to deliver the possession of a house within a period of two years, then interest at the rate of 6% per annum would be payable on the total amount so deposited to it for the period after the expiry of two years up to the issue of the possession letter. A stipulation to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum by the Board is also provided in para 12.6 of the Booklet of Parijat Scheme (Annex.-2). It cannot be disputed here that the Board has failed to deliver the passion of a house within the stipulated period i.e. by the end of 30th June, 1990. The tottery itself has been drawn on March 25, 1991 and even than the possession of the house could not be delivered to the petitioner by the Board for which the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault. It all has happened due to the misconduct on the part of the Board's officers/staff members. As per para-12.8 of the Booklet (Annex. 2), the Board charges interest @ 16% per annum from the applicants in respect of escalated amount of price and in case of default in payment of instalments also. Here the Board is a defaulter in providing a house to the petitioner within the stipulated time. Though, the petitioner has claimed 16% interest p.a. on the reasoning that when Board charges 16% interest in case of default from the side of the applicant on escalation prices then to award lesser interest to the petitioner would be discriminatory. Here the Board is a defaulter in providing a house to the petitioner within the stipulated time. Though, the petitioner has claimed 16% interest p.a. on the reasoning that when Board charges 16% interest in case of default from the side of the applicant on escalation prices then to award lesser interest to the petitioner would be discriminatory. In this writ petition I was not required to decide as to whether the conditions with regard to the respective interest payable to the Board and the registered applicant are discriminatory or not, as such, I would like to award only 6% interest per annum on the entire amount of the instalments so deposited by the petitioner with the Board from 1st July, 1990 till a house is allotted and the possession of the same is delivered to the petitioner as provided in the Booklet (Annex. 2) and admitted by the Board in its reply. 27. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified as Rs. 2000/-(two thousand only) to be shared equally between respondent No. 1 to 4 jointly and respondent No. 5-Sh. Gupta. The respondent No. l to 4 are directed to forthwith allot the house No. 103/1 in Sector-10 in Mansarover at Jaipur and also deliver the possession of the same to the petitioner. The lottery in respect of this house No. 103/1 drawn in favour of the respondent No. 5 on March 25, 1991 is quashed. The respondent - Board is further directed to pay interest @ b% per annum to the petitioner on the entire amount deposited by him from 1st July, 1990 till the allotment and possession of the aforesaid house is made to him. It is, however, made clear that the Board shall be free to realise the amount of interest from the erring officers of the Board if the Board is able to fix the liability. 28. Before parting with, I shall be failing in my duties if I shut my eyes after being satisfied that forgery has been committed in the record of the Board and that too by the high officers of the Board up to the rank of Dy. Housing Commissioner, and allow such officers to go unpunished for their misdeeds. The respondent-Board is a public institution engaged in important public function concerning common man in a welfare State. Housing Commissioner, and allow such officers to go unpunished for their misdeeds. The respondent-Board is a public institution engaged in important public function concerning common man in a welfare State. Efforts should be made that the confidence of the public is not shaken or even eroded towards such institutions, therefore, it is necessary that mis-deeds of the high officers should be adequately enquired into and properly punished.I, therefore, direct that a copy of this order be sent by the registry to the Secretary, Urban Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for such action as may be deemed fit against the erring officers of the Board. The Dy. Registrar (Judl.) is also directed that the concerned files of the Rajasthan Housing Board which have been produced by the counsel for the Board shall be kept in safe custody by him in a sealed cover till further orders of the Court. Writ Petition allowed. *******