V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction striking down Clause 2. 3 d (2) of the Schedule of the Govt. Resolution dated 29. 6. 1989 at Annex. A by declaring it as discriminative and affecting Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the said resolution to the petitioners who are also Govt. employees serving at Gandhinagar. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to this petition are that all the petitioners are government employees serving in different departments of the government at Gandhinagar in different capacities. It is submitted that the State of Gujarat decided to allot housing plots at Gandhinagar to the Government employees serving at Gandhinagar by its resolution dated 29. 6. 1998 at Annex. A at concessional rates on certain terms and conditions prescribed in the Schedule-II of the said resolution. One of the conditions of the said Schedule viz. Clause 2. 3 (d) (2) provides that the government employees not owning/possessing plot of land house/rat either in his name or in the name of husband/wife or dependents at Gandhinagar would be entitled to the allotment of government plots under the said resolution at Annex. A. It is submitted that the petitioners are serving at Gandhinagar since the establishment of Gandhinagar capital of Gujarat. It is submitted that at that time no sufficient government quarters were available for the government employees at Gandhinagar. However Gujarat Housing Board had constructed some flats/tenements at Gandhinagar and offered the same on hire-purchase basis to the government employees As the petitioners were not provided at that time government quarters they occupied Gujarat Housing Board (GHB for short) flats/tenements on hire-purchase basis. It is submitted that GHB flats/tenements occupied by the petitioners were very small having inadequate facilities with two rooms and kitchen. Further it is submitted that initially the government adopted policy that government employees who are having their own houses within the area of 8 kms. from Gandhinagar and own houses in Ahmedabad city were not entitled to the government plots at Gandhinagar at concessional rates. Further it is submitted that initially the government adopted policy that government employees who are having their own houses within the area of 8 kms. from Gandhinagar and own houses in Ahmedabad city were not entitled to the government plots at Gandhinagar at concessional rates. It is submitted that with a view to get benefit of having government plot at Gandhinagar at consessional rate some government employees who were having their own houses in Ahmedabad filed false affidavits stating that they are not having any house at Ahmedabad and got government plots. It is further submitted that as soon as that fact was brought to the notice of the government the government was put in an embarrassing situation and therefore subsequently the government altered the policy to the extent that the employees owning houses at Ahmedabad would be eligible to occupy government plot at Gandhinagar and accordingly they were alloted government plots at Gandhinagar by regularising their cases on certain terms and conditions. But the condition regarding employees who have occupied/purchased houses at Gandhinagar remained unaltered. Thus the petition. could not get government plots at concessional rates along with their colleagues. Hence this petition. ( 3 ) IT is to be noted here that though this petition was admitted and Rule was issued in the year 1990 and the respondents were served with the copy thereof in the year 1990 no affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondents objecting this petition but the Court insisted to the government for filing affidavit-in-reply even at the time of final hearing and therefore respondents submitted their affidavit-in-reply on 6. 12. 1993 which is kept on record. ( 4 ) MR. Y. N. Oza learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Gandhinagar is being treated as like Suberb of Ahmedabad for all practical purposes socio-economic connections that government employees serving at Gandhinagar are getting CLA HRA Medical Allowances etc. at par with the employees serving at Ahmedabad. Even Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has extended its city bus transport facilities to Gandhinagar with large number of frequencies of buses. Fare between Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad is also accordingly fixed. Further top ranked government officers like IAS and IPS officers though serving at Gandhinagar are allowed to stay at Ahmedabad in government bungalows and to make up and down. Mr. Even Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has extended its city bus transport facilities to Gandhinagar with large number of frequencies of buses. Fare between Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad is also accordingly fixed. Further top ranked government officers like IAS and IPS officers though serving at Gandhinagar are allowed to stay at Ahmedabad in government bungalows and to make up and down. Mr. Oza therefore submitted that Gandhinagar should be treated equally at par with Ahmedabad city for all purposes at in particular for the purpose of extending benefit of the government resolution at Annex. A to those employees owning house at Gandhinagar. Mr. Oza also emphatically submitted that the petitioners who have occupied GHB flats/tenements under hire-purchase scheme are not absolute owner of the said flats/ tenements. Further the premises which the petitioners are occupying are very small consisting of two rooms and kitchen which is inadequate for the officers of the rank of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the policy of the government under impugned resolution is to offer government plots at concessional rates to the government employees as per their ranks and status in the services and to advance loan to them for constructing houses. It has been submitted that Class: IV employees have also been allotted government plots and have constructed their own houses which are more bigger than the houses which the petitioners occupy in GHB colony and this has created very embarrassing position for higher ranked officers. Mr. Oza. very emphatically submitted that some of the government officers who got government plots at concessional rates at Gandhinagar by filing false affidavit their cases have been regularised by the government. Mr. Oza submitted that instead of taking criminal action against those govt. employees who have filed affidavit they have been paid premium by regularising allotment by recovering some higher price than regular consessional rates. If the government is generous enough to condone falsehood of those govt. officers by regarding they owning GHB flats/tenements have been denied the benefit of said resolution ? It clearly amounts to discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Oza further vehemently submitted that politicians who do not occassionally have also been alloted government plots at concessional rates. officers by regarding they owning GHB flats/tenements have been denied the benefit of said resolution ? It clearly amounts to discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Oza further vehemently submitted that politicians who do not occassionally have also been alloted government plots at concessional rates. It is submitted that Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly who normally stay in their constituency have been alloted government plots at Gandhinagar and they are not subject to any restrictions or terms and conditions regarding having their own houses ar Gandhinagar or at Ahmedabad. The petitioners who are permanent denied their right of constructing house of their choice at Gandhinagar. Mr. Oza market price. They have either to be satisfied with presently occupied small flats/tenements or to shift their families from Gandhinagar after their retirement. It is also submitted that the government officers who are fortunate enough to have government plots have constructed good houses and for constructing houses the government has also advanced loan to them. Why the petitioners have been denied from that benefit and opportunity. As against this Mr. R. P. Solanki learned AGP for the respondents fully supported the stand taken by the Government. It has been contended in the affidavit-in-reply that the employees who have their own houses at Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar were not entitled to own government plots at Gandhinagar but as there was some protest against this policy a study group was appointed and said study group recommended to the government that the employees who have their own houses at Ahmedabad be exonerated form condition regarding eligibility and be allowed to occupy government plots at Gandhinagar and accordingly the Cabinet took decision and allowed those employees to occupy government plots at Gandhinagar and also allowed those regularising their cases. Mr. Solanki further submitted that the petitioners who have occupied GHB flats/tenements on hie-purchase basis are also government houses offered to them at concessional rates and therefore the action of the government in not alloting government plots to those employees i. e. petitioner is reasonable and justified. Mr. Solanki further submitted that the court should not interfere in the policy matters of the Government. ( 5 ) IT is difficult to agree with the absurd submissions canvassed by Mr. Solanki learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Solanki further submitted that the court should not interfere in the policy matters of the Government. ( 5 ) IT is difficult to agree with the absurd submissions canvassed by Mr. Solanki learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners who have occupied the GHB flats/tenements under hire purchase scheme it could not be said that those houses are also government houses offered to the petitioners at a concessional rates. I see much substance in the submission of Mr. Oza learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that Gandhinagar be treated as a part/suberb of Ahmedabad city for all practical purposes. It is and admitted fact that the government employees serving at Gandhinagar are drawing DA HRA CLA Medical Allowance etc. on the same rate at which the government employees serving at Ahmedabad are being paid Even Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has extended its transport facilities to Gandhinagar and frequency of buses is in large number There is extensive development in between Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad and virtually there is no difference between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar Even many of the head-offices which are required to be in Gandhinagar are located in Ahmedabad Even employees serving at Gandhinagar are permitted to stay at Ahmedabad and to make up and down and employees owning houses at Ahmedabad are allowed to occupy government plots at Gandhinagar in the event of they being serving at Gandhinagar. Then why the petitioners who are serving at Gandhinagar and owning GHB flats/tenements are deprived of their right to occupy government plots at Gandhinagar ? Even site for High Court of Gujarat which should be in normal circumstances located in the Slate Capital is located in between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar and virtually there is no distinction between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar In my opinion therefore if the employees serving at Gandhinagar and owning houses at Ahmedabad are allowed to occupy government plots at Gandhinagar at concessional rates the petitioners who are owning GHB flats/tenements having no full time over the said flats/tenement there is no valid and reasonable ground for discriminating those employees in the matter of allotment of government plots under the said Resolution dated 29. 6. 1988 at Annex. A. For ready reference Clause 2 3 (d) (2) of the schedule to the Resolution dated 29. 6. 1988 at Annex A is reproduced herein below - (True translation)2. 6. 1988 at Annex. A. For ready reference Clause 2 3 (d) (2) of the schedule to the Resolution dated 29. 6. 1988 at Annex A is reproduced herein below - (True translation)2. 3 (d) The permanent government employees satisfying all the terms and conditions stated herein below would be eligible for plot of land as aforesaid: (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) Those employees not owning/possessing plot of land or house/ flat in their name or in the name husband/wile or dependents (3) xxxx xxxx xxxxas stated above this clause 2 3 (d) (2) is clearly discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore requires to be struck down ( 6 ) THE law is well-settled regarding powers of judicial review of the High Court Broadly speaking the court would not interfere with matters of administrative policy as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Debranjan vs. Comptroller reported in AIR 1985 SC 306 or changes made thereof However the court can interfere it the action of the government is arbitrary or discriminatory or where the policy adopted has no reasonable nexus with the object which it socks to achieve or it is malafide as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagraj vs. State of AP AIR 1985 SC 551 Kastur Lal vs. State of Jandk AIR 1980 SC 1992 . The right of equality before law is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Article 14 extends protection against discriminatory and arbitrary action of the government The equality clause contained in Article 14 requires that all persons subjected to any legislation should be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions Equals have to be treated equally and unequals ought not to be treated equally While that article forbids class legislation it does not forbid classification for purposes of implementing the right of equality guaranteed by it In order however to pass the lest of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that the differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. While the classification may be founded on different basis what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. (Motor General Traders vs. State of A. P. (1984) 1 SCC 222 ) ( 7 ) IF we appreciate clause 2. 3 (d) (2) of schedule to the Resolution dated 29. 6. 1988 at Annex. A the object and intention of the government in issuing said resolution forming policy is to allot government plots at concessional rates to the government employees serving at Gandhinagar so that they can settle permanently at Gandhinagar. The government is generous enough to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly in exempting them from applicability of said clause 2. 3 but in case or small government employees they are not exempted. Further the government allotted plots to the employees owning houses at Ahmedabad and government also regularised cases of those employees who have obtained government plots by filing false affidavit. Only in cases of the petitioners and others similarly situated employees who have honestly disclosed the fact of owning GHB flats/tenements they have been denied right to occupy government plots. In my view therefore the action of the government is arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and requires to he struck down. I see no rational and justiciable classification. Hence this petition requires to be allowed. ( 8 ) IN the result petition is allowed. Clause 2. 3 of Schedule to the Resolution dated 29. 6 at Annex. A is hereby struck down as it being arbitrary discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is hereby held that the petitioners we entitled to occupy government plots at Gandhinagar. However it would be open for the government to recover from the petitioners the price of the plots at the rate recovered from the government employees who own houses at Ahmedabad and have been alloted government plots at Gandhinagar. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief if any stands vacated. Petition Allowed. .