M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) WHAT has been prayed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to call for the record and proceedings of the Board and the Committee in particular the minutes of the Committees meeting dated 23 to declare that the Committee had no power to reject the petitioners application orally on the ground of ineligibility of the petitioner for allotment of tenement under Higher Income Group (for short HIG) scheme of the respondent- Board to direct the respondent-Board to include the name of the petitioner in the final list of allottees of the HIG scheme also known as Vastrapur scheme and to restrain the respondent by its Board or its Committee from publishing and/or preparing the final list of allottees of the said scheme. ( 2 ) SHORT facts set-up by the petitioner may briefly be reproduced below : the respondent-Gujarat Housing Board initiated a scheme for HIG persons who according to the respondent-Board must have had an income exceeding Rs. 18 0 which was maximum limit for middle income group persons. For the said HIG scheme the respondent acquired the land and started construction in Vastrapur near old Sachivalaya Ahmedabad. The applications were invited by a public advertisement calling upon the persons eligible as HIG persons to make applications on before 31/1/1979 in the prescribed form and the petitioner was one of the applicants as per his application dated 31/1/1979. He deposited Rs. 8 500 in favour of the respondent-Board. The value of one unit of tenament was tentatively fixed at Rs. 85 0 There were 78 tenements for disposal by the respondent. The Property Allotment Committee was constituted for the purpose of scrutiny and selection of the applications by tracing eligible applicants and by preparing list of such eligible applicants. This exercise was to be done in consonance with the regulations. It is the say of the petitioner that he was ascertained by the Committee to be an eligible applicant. On a reference to regulation no. 41 it has been asserted that where the applicants applications received were more than double the number of tenements for allotment the allotment could be decided by draw. In the aforesaid scheme there were applicants much in excess of the required number and therefore the Property Allotment Committee decided to draw the lots of the applications on 18/3/1979 at Jaishankar Sundari Hall. In the aforesaid scheme there were applicants much in excess of the required number and therefore the Property Allotment Committee decided to draw the lots of the applications on 18/3/1979 at Jaishankar Sundari Hall. Ultimately the date was extended to 22/4/1979 when the lots were to be drawn in presence of the applicants for which purpose appropriate communications were issued by the respondent. On 4/5/1979 the Board informed the petitioner that he was one of the successful applicants in the lot and his application no. 419 was included in the semi final list and called upon the petitioner to submit further details. While waiting for the result of the semi-final list and consequent allotment of tenements the petitioner received letter dated 18/1/1980 from the respondent-Board stating therein that as the petitioner was minor his application was liable to be rejected. By that letter he was called upon to remain present before the Committee on 23 for the purpose of hearing him. The petitioners representative was given personal hearing by the Committee and he was told that only objection in the allotment was that the petitioners mother also became eligible applicant in the same scheme and that the petitioner was not entitled to the tenement. The oral decision so conveyed by the Committee was not supported by any rule or regulation and was ex-facie arbitrary according to the say of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore served notice dated 27 through his advocate and as the notice remained unreplied the petitioner approached this Court as stated above. ( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties it would be appropriate to state the say of the respondent-Board. According to the respondent-Board the flats or tenements could not be allotted to minors who are not competent to enter into hire purchase agreement. Besides considering the definition of the family in the regulations more than one person of the family could not apply for allotment or could not be allotted flat or tenement in the scheme. In the present case the petitioners mother did apply and came to be allotted one tenement. Besides considering the definition of the family in the regulations more than one person of the family could not apply for allotment or could not be allotted flat or tenement in the scheme. In the present case the petitioners mother did apply and came to be allotted one tenement. It is the say of the respondent that the flats are being constructed for equal distribution and if more than one member of the family is allowed to purchase flats in the scheme the very purpose of the distribution of flats would be frustrated and it would be against the interest of the society. The petitioner has also made application against the prescribed form of the respondent-Board and has no enforceable right. The respondent-Board communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 18/1/1980 that the petitioner did not produce any evidence regarding his income and that he was minor and therefore was not entitled to allotment of tenement in the scheme of respondent-Board. A list of persons having one or the other defects regarding eligibility was prepared and was placed before the Allotment Committee. Against the name of the petitioner the aforesaid defects were shown. The Property Allotment Committee thereupon after considering the objections decided to reject the application at the initial stage and did not place the petitioner in the semi final list. Accordingly the name of the petitioner was not placed in semi-final list. Even after the petitioner gave notice through his advocate on 7 it was again placed before the Property Allotment Committee and in its meeting dated 19 the Property Allotment Committee considered the said legal notice and the contentions taken by the petitioner. The Committee again resolved and decided to confirm its earlier decision. Under such circumstances respondent-Board has claimed dismissal of the petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. The main questions which arise for determination in this petition may be broadly dealt with under the following heads: i. Whether the respondent-Board was justified in rejecting the petitioners application for allotment on the ground that he was a minor applicant in the context of the first objection of the respondent-Board that the petitioner being a minor applicant could not be allotted a tenement in the aforesaid HIG scheme of the respondent-Board. Now for this objection Mr. Now for this objection Mr. Hathi learned advocate for the petitioner read before me the regulations and tried to point out that there is no regulation which provides for any such disability. The relevant regulations which have been read are 5 5 5 33 34 38 41 and 42. Regulation no. 5 contains various definitions. Clause (7) of Regulation no. 5 defines applicant as under:"applicant means a person who has signed the application by putting his signature or affixing his thumb impression; clause (26) of Regulation no. 5 defines eligible person to be a person who is entitled to purchase of property in the relevant scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and these Regulations. Clause (27) of Regulation no. 5 defines family consisting of following persons : (i) The applicant and his or her spouse (ii) Their children (iii) Their parents and grand parents (iv) Brothers and sisters of their parents (v) Their sons and daughters-in-law (vi) Their brothers and sisters and their children (vii) Their brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law clause (38) of Regulation no. 5 defines income as meaning the aggregate annual income for the preceding twelve months of the month in which applications are called from regularly derived by the applicant including his wife/her husband and minor children from occupation trade business or employment or etc. etc. There was no definition of Higher Income Group person at the relevant point of time but it was subsequently added. However it is an admitted position that one whose income is more than Rs. 18 0 was eligible for applying and to be allotted a flat/tenement in the scheme in question. etc. There was no definition of Higher Income Group person at the relevant point of time but it was subsequently added. However it is an admitted position that one whose income is more than Rs. 18 0 was eligible for applying and to be allotted a flat/tenement in the scheme in question. Regulation 33 inter-alia prescribes that the benefit of scheme would be available to only that person who does not already own a house or a flat or a plot for the construction of residential building and who shall be eligible for such allotment with a proviso enabling the Board to consider the case of any person having a house or a flat or a plot if the Board would be satisfied that the additional house or a flat is needed for the applicants bonafide residential purpose; but such consideration by the Board would not be available to the applicant who owns either in his own name or in the name of his wife or minor children a house or a flat for residential purpose within the radius of 5 miles of the city or town where houses or flats are to be given on hire purchase system. Regulation 34 speaks of Property Allotment Committee to be appointed by the Government for selecting the applications for scrutiny for the purpose of finding out eligibility of the applicants in the respective groups. Regulations nos. 38 and 39 speak of the functioning of the Property Allotment Committee. Regulation no. 41 may be reproduced below: "41 Applications to be selected for scrutiny when the number is more than 1. 30 times the number of properties to be allotted shall be decided by drawal of lots to the extent of not more than 1. 30 times the number of applications received is less than 1. 30 times the number of properties to be allotted than all the applications received shall be put to tot. Such drawal shall determine priority for further steps. (Approved vide Government letter No. HBA-1075/75333-A dated 12 " regulation no. 42 also needs be reproduced. It reads as under: "42 After full scrutiny of such selected applications the Property Allotment Committee shall prepare a semi-final list of applicants who have been considered eligible out of the applications thus selected. Such drawal shall determine priority for further steps. (Approved vide Government letter No. HBA-1075/75333-A dated 12 " regulation no. 42 also needs be reproduced. It reads as under: "42 After full scrutiny of such selected applications the Property Allotment Committee shall prepare a semi-final list of applicants who have been considered eligible out of the applications thus selected. The Committee shall group these allottees on the semi-final list building-wise or in any other way found convenient by it for the purpose of constituting the Registered Agency as provided hereinafter". Regulation no. 45 has been relied upon by the petitioner and the same also reads as under:"45 All objections and representations if any shall be considered by the Property Allotment Committee and its decision in regard to both allotment and grouping shall be recorded in writing". From the aforesaid regulations it has been submitted that a minor applicant is not ineligible for allotment of a flat or a tenement in any of the respondents scheme. However it should be borne in mind that there is no provision in the regulations which enables a minor applicant to make an application for allotment of a flat or a tenement in any scheme of the respondent-Board. Question therefore is whether the respondent-Board would be justified in rejecting a minors application on the ground that he is a minor. Reliance has been placed on Section 11 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872 Section 11 reads as under :"11 Who are competent to contract-Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject". It is an admitted position that the petitioner was minor under the relevant provisions of Indian Majority Act. It is thus clear that he was incompetent to contract at all relevant points of time. Section 10 of the Contract Act says that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract. . . . . It is thus clear that he was incompetent to contract at all relevant points of time. Section 10 of the Contract Act says that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract. . . . . It is no doubt true that a natural guardian or a legal guardian or a guardian appointed under the appropriate provisions of Guardians and Wards Act or any personal law for the time being in force or even de-facto guardian can enter into a contract for the benefit of a minor or for legal necessity but then a contracting party would be justified to refuse to enter into a contract with a minor on a plain reading of section 11 reproduced hereinabove. The ultimate consequence of scheme moved by the respondent-Board for the purpose of housing certain classes of persons would be to enter into hire purchase agreements whereby ultimately the flats or the tenements are being allotted to the applicants belonging to particular class of the society. Thus ultimately the respondent-Board would be a contracting party and there being no enabling provision in either the Gujarat Housing Board Act 1961 or in the regulations there would be justification for the respondent-Board in rejecting an application of a minor applicant. Mr. Hathi learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Collector Meerut vs. Hardian Singh and ors reported in AIR 1945 All 156 where it has been held by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court that even though a person may be disqualified to enter into a contract such disqualification does not debar that person from being transferee under a conveyance. The reason is that totally different considerations apply when a matter passes from the domain of contract into that of a conveyance. It has been held that it is on this ground that even though a minor is incompetent to enter into a contract no such disability attached to him in the matter of transfer of property and a sale deed executed in his favour would be valid and enforceable. It has been held that it is on this ground that even though a minor is incompetent to enter into a contract no such disability attached to him in the matter of transfer of property and a sale deed executed in his favour would be valid and enforceable. Dealing with Section 37 of U. P. Court of Wards Act (4 of 1912 it has been further hold that the disability cast on a ward by section 37 extend only to a transfer of or creation of a charge on his property by the ward or to his entering into a contract which may impose a pecuniary liability on him. There is nothing in the section to indicate that the Legislature intends to prohibit a ward from becoming the transferee of property. It has been further observed that it may be that a vendor who is competent to enter into a contract incurs a personal liability with respect to the unpaid purchase money and such personal liability is enforceable at the instance of the vendor. But if the vendee happens to be a minor or a ward of Court and is as such disqualified from entering into a contract it is manifest that he cannot incur a personal liability with respect to the unpaid purchase money. In such a case the only remedy open to the vendor is to recover the unpaid purchase money by enforcement of the statutory charge against the property sold. It is in the context of such facts it has been held that the sale in favour of the ward therefore would not be void even if a part of the purchase money remained unpaid and was left with the vendee for payment to the creditors of the vendor. The whole decision proceeds on the fooling of the facts that the conveyance was already entered into and the consequences of such a conveyance in favour of the minor were to be considered. The authority does not say that one contracting party would be obliged to enter into a contract with a minor or it does not say that one contracting party cannot legitimately refuse to enter into a contract with the minor. The reason is obvious that section 11 of the Contract Act reproduced hereinabove clearly indicates the incapacity of a minor to enter into a contract. The reason is obvious that section 11 of the Contract Act reproduced hereinabove clearly indicates the incapacity of a minor to enter into a contract. No opinion is hereby expressed in case where there is any provision in the Regulations enabling the Board to enter into a contract with a minor what would be consequence upon Board refusing to enter into a contract of hire purchase with a minor applicant or upon the Board refusing to entertain application of a minor applicant. Consequently the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on this count cannot be accepted. ( 5 ) MR. Hathi has then placed reliance upon a decision in the case of U. K. Acharya and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 29 (1) G. L. R. 1988 p. 209 which speaks of the regulations made by the Board fixing principles to be followed in allotment of flats and tenements partaking the character of statutory regulations as they are made in exercise of the statutory power u/s. 74 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act 1961 and not only that they pertained to discharge of statutory obligations of the Board as per section 25 read with section 2 (a) of the Act. It has been held that these regulations are mandatory in character and they have to be strictly complied with. In my opinion this decision shall have no bearing on the question under consideration. However it would have some relevance on the question whether any order in writing is required to be passed at the stage when the petitioners application came to be rejected. II. Whether in view of the petitioners mother being one of the successful applicants at the tot the respondent-Board was justified in rejecting the petitioners application ? the answer would be in the affirmative on a plain reading of the Regulation no. 33 which has been referred to hereinabove. However for the purpose of answering the submission made by Mr. Hathi on behalf of the petitioner the same may be reproduced. the answer would be in the affirmative on a plain reading of the Regulation no. 33 which has been referred to hereinabove. However for the purpose of answering the submission made by Mr. Hathi on behalf of the petitioner the same may be reproduced. "33 Properties created under a Low Income Group Housing Scheme shall be allotted only to Low Income Group persons and those under a Middle Income Group Housing Scheme only to Middle Income group persons; provided that the benefit of such schemes shall be available to only that person who does not already own a house or a flat or a plot for the construction of residential building and who shall be eligible for such allotment as a Low Income Group or Middle Income Group person as the case may be at the time of his application; provided further that the Board or the Property Allotment Committee as the case may be may consider the case of any person even if he owns a house or a flat or a plot already if the Board or the Committee as the case may be is satisfied that the additional house or flat is needed for his bonafide residential purpose; Provided further that such consideration shall not be given for any applicant who owns either in his own name or in the name of his wife or minor children a house or a flat for residential purpose within the radius of 5 miles of the city or town where houses or flats are to be given on hire purchase system;"in my opinion the respondent-Board was justified in rejecting the petitioners application even on the ground that the petitioners mother came to be one of the successful applicants at the lot. To this the submission of Mr. Hathi is that the relevant date is the date of application and on the date of application neither the petitioner nor the mother of the petitioner had been in the vicinity of being allotted a flat or a tenement in the scheme in question. To this the submission of Mr. Hathi is that the relevant date is the date of application and on the date of application neither the petitioner nor the mother of the petitioner had been in the vicinity of being allotted a flat or a tenement in the scheme in question. Apart from the facts of the present case it should be noted that ultimately till the Board enters into a contract for allotment it should be open to the Property Allotment Committee and for that matter the Board to consider the question about whether a member of applicants family is having or is to have a flat or a tenement for the residential accommodation of the family at least in the very scheme itself. If that exercise is not made the very purpose of the schemes floated by the respondent-Board under the various provisions of the Gujarat Housing Board Act 1961 and the regulations made thereunder would be frustrated. The purpose of the various schemes as stated above is to provide residential accommodation to the persons of particular groups having no residential accommodation within particular area and consideration of a flat or a tenement to be made available to one of the members of the family for that purpose would be relevant. In that view of the matter the submission of Mr. Hathi cannot be accepted. The respondent-Board was quite justified in rejecting the petitioners application also on the ground that the petitioners mother came to be one of the successful applicants at the tot and ultimately it would still be justified in saying that the petitioners mother came to be allotted a flat or a tenement in the scheme and at present holds such a flat or a tenement. III. Whether the rejection of petitioners application by the Board is in violation of provision of Regulation No. 45. Mr. Hathi learned advocate for the petitioner made reference to Regulation No. 45 which has been reproduced hereinabove. Accordingly all objections and representations if any have to be considered by the Property Allotment Committee and its decision in regard to both allotment and grouping shall be recorded in writing. In the present case as stated above minutes of both the aforesaid meetings clearly indicate that the rejection of the petitioners application has been in writing in as much as the rejection has been recorded in writing in the minutes themselves. In the present case as stated above minutes of both the aforesaid meetings clearly indicate that the rejection of the petitioners application has been in writing in as much as the rejection has been recorded in writing in the minutes themselves. This is apart from the fact that before a semi-final list could be finalised the petitioner came to be informed about the objections noted above. He was given an opportunity of being heard. His representative was also heard and after hearing the rejection of the application was recorded in the minutes. It matters not that the decision was conveyed orally to the representative of the petitioner in the meeting itself. The decision indicates two groups namely firstly that the petitioner was minor and not eligible for being allotted a flat and secondly that evidence with regard to income was not produced. It is no-doubt true that at that point of time the respondent-Board might not have considered the petitioners mothers application as a ground for rejection but in my opinion that ground would still be available to the respondent- Board at an appropriate point of time. There are much more applications than the available flats. Even after the notice was received from the petitioners advocate the Committee once-again considered the same and recorded the decision in the meeting to the effect that the previous decision was confirmed. In this view of the matter even this submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The result is that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to cost. Mr. Hathi learned advocate for the petitioner prays for extension of interim relief as the petitioner would like to take the matter further. Heard Mrs. K. A. Mehta learned advocate for the respondent in this respect. Considering the fact that the interim relief has operated for so many years there is no reason why request for extension of interim relief is not granted. Hence interim relief is extended till 24/8/1993. Petition Dismissed. .