Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1463 (PNJ)

Shashi Bala v. Chandigarh Housing Board

2000-11-29

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.GAREWAL

body2000
Judgment JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. 1. The petitioner complaints that the action of the Chandigarh Housing Board in cancelling the allotment of the dwelling unit was arbitrary, unfair and violative of the principles of natural justice. She prays that the order dated July 3, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed. 2. The Board invited applications for the allotment of dwelling units constructed for the persons belonging to the category of low income group. The petitioner was one of the applicants. Since the number of applicants was more than the available units, it was decided to make allotment by draw of lots. The lots were actually drawn on November 5, 1998. The petitioner was lucky. She was allotted unit No. 2359/3 in Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. 3. Under the terms of allotment, the petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs. 16,655/- by February 25, 1989. This amount represented 25% of the total price of the unit. Apprehending some financial difficulty, the petitioner had requested for the grant of extension of time. The request was accepted vide letter dated December 30, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The petitioner was allowed to make the payment by March 27, 1989. The petitioner actually paid Rs. 15,665/- on February 25, 1989. She deposited the balance of Rs. 1,000/- on March 27, 1989. Thus, the full amount as due was deposited by the date fixed by the respondent Board. Despite this, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated July 3, 1989 that the allotment had been cancelled. In Para 6 of the letter it was mentioned as under :- "And whereas neither any intimation has been received nor the payment and documents have been submitted within the stipulated time, nor any application for extension has been received from you as per Clause 4 of the allotment letter." 4 The petitioner represented. She even produced photocopies of the receipts. However, this proved of no avail. No body paid any heed. Finally she has approached this Court through the present writ petition with the prayer that the order of cancellation be quashed. 5. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. She even produced photocopies of the receipts. However, this proved of no avail. No body paid any heed. Finally she has approached this Court through the present writ petition with the prayer that the order of cancellation be quashed. 5. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia pleaded by way of preliminary objection that the writ petition is highly belated. On merits the factum of deposit of the requisite amount has not been disputed. However, it has been averred that the petitioner had failed to comply with the formalities. Thus, the impugned order should be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 7. Admittedly, the dwelling unit had been allotted to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity before the order of cancellation was passed. Still further, it is also admitted that even after the receipt of the order of cancellation the petitioner had actually deposited an amount of Rs. 9,000/- on February 28, 1990 and Rs. 5860/- on May 23, 1990. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was keen to retain the unit. Regarding the other documents like the photograph and the affidavit it has been repeatedly asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that the needful had been done. However, he states that even if the Board has misplaced the documents, the petitioner would furnish an affidavit and the photograph etc. Still further, it had been stated by the counsel on an earlier date of hearing that the dwelling unit was still lying vacant. In order to ascertain the factual position the case was adjourned. Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, has made an enquiry. She has found that the unit is still available. 8. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, it is clear that the impugned order was passed without the grant of any opportunity to the petitioner, Still further, one of the grounds, which had been taken into consideration was that the petitioner had failed to make the deposit. It was also asserted that she had not even asked for extension of time. Both the findings were incorrect. Factually the petitioner had asked for extension of time. She had even made deposit of the full amount of money by the date given to her. It was also asserted that she had not even asked for extension of time. Both the findings were incorrect. Factually the petitioner had asked for extension of time. She had even made deposit of the full amount of money by the date given to her. In this situation, we are not satisfied that the other assertion regarding the petitioners failure to submit the affidavit and the picture is correct. In any event, the deposit by the petitioner was symbolic of her intention to accept the allotment. 9. Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, contends that the allotment was provisional and that no opportunity was required to be afforded to the petitioner as she had failed to comply with the terms of the allotment letter. We are unable to accept this contention. In the circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the failure to grant an opportunity has resulted in miscarriage of justice. If an opportunity had been granted, the petitioner could have brought the full facts to the notice of the Board. In particular she could have shown that she had been granted extension of time for making the deposit and that she had done the needful by the due date. This being the factual position, we are satisfied that the impugned order was violative of the principles of natural justice. 10. Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, contends the petition is highly belated. Thus, the Court should refuse to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 11. It is undoubtedly correct that the impugned order was passed in July 1989. However, it is equally clear that the petitioner had made repeated representations. She had brought the patent mistake committed by the Board to its notice. Despite that, no remedial measure was taken by the authority. On a perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the petitioner was not resting on her oars. She was continuously trying. In fact, it appears that a totally deaf ear was turned to the petitioners repeated requests. The Board did not decline her request. It conveyed no decision. It cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own inaction and silence. A public authority has to act fairly. It cannot sit silent while the citizen is clamouring. The position could have been different if the Board had conveyed a decision. Not otherwise. Denial of relief to the petitioner would cause an irrepairable loss to her. It cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own inaction and silence. A public authority has to act fairly. It cannot sit silent while the citizen is clamouring. The position could have been different if the Board had conveyed a decision. Not otherwise. Denial of relief to the petitioner would cause an irrepairable loss to her. She does not deserve that. Specially when the Board has kept silent and retained her money. 12. Mr. Chhibbar, submits that almost 508 of the amount had already been deposited by the petitioner by May 1990. However, despite the deposit of this amount the petitioner has not been allowed to use the dwelling unit. As a result, the petitioner has suffered a substantial loss on account of the impugned order. Ms. Thakur on the other hand points out that the petitioner will have to pay the remaining amount of money along with interest at the rate of 18%. 13. In the peculiar facts of this case, it appears to be just and reasonable to direct that the petitioner shall pay the remaining amount in lump sum along with interest at the rate of 12% from May 1990 onwards. The Board shall calculate the amount due from the petitioner within one week from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall make the payment within three months from the date of the receipt of demand from the Board. The possession of the premises shall be given to the petitioner within a week of her making the deposit. 14. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.Petition allowed.