( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a destitute widow having lost her young son residing on rent in a dilapidated house, and who had applied for a house under a scheme floated by Moradabad Development Authority in 1993 and having paid in that regard a sum of Rs. 48,000 in all as evident from Annexure-2, has come up with a prayer to quash the Office Note/d. O. dated 2-4-1998 as contained in Annexure-3, and allotment order dated 2/4-4-1998 as contained in Annexure-4, allotting House No. 5, Navin Nagar Aswaasiya Yojna pursuant to order dated 12-12-1996 passed by Respondent No. 1 and to command Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allot that house to her. ( 2 ) SHE asserts as follows :-AS per the scheme as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition houses were to be allotted to4 persons belonging to general category on first come first served basis for which one was required to deposit 25% towards cost of the house along with his application and further 25% at the time of handing over possession of the house and remaining amount of 50% was required to be deposited in 48 equal instalments with an interest rate of 16% per annum within a span of four years plus 12% for freehold charges; she fulfilled all requirements and thereby was /is entitled to the house in question; even though she had made deposits but no action was taken by the Development Authority; she moved from pillar to post but without any result; in the meantime Respondent No. 2 allotted the house in question to Respondent No. 3 Smt. Shiksha Rani - wife of the gunner of the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority despite the fact that neither Respondent No. 3 nor is her husband an empolyee of the Development Authority concerned; and thus the allotment of the house in question is arbitrary and as a result of misuse of powers vested in the Authority. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which has been sworn by an Office Assistant of the Development Authority, the deposits made by the petitioner for the purposes of residential flat has been admitted. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which has been sworn by an Office Assistant of the Development Authority, the deposits made by the petitioner for the purposes of residential flat has been admitted. It has however, been asserted that merely because of the principle of first come first served the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment rather she is required to complete formalities; the allotment order of the disputed house was issued in compliance with the direction made by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division who is Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority; there has been no arbitrariness in allotment of the house in favour of Respondent No. 3; she has an alternative remedy for seeking redressal of her grievances from the civil Court; and that the writ petition is misconceived. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the aforementioned counter affidavit denying the stand taken in the Counter. ( 5 ) NO counter has been filed by Respondent No. 3. ( 6 ) SRI B. B. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact stated in the counter it is crystal clear that the allotment of the house in question was made at the instance of the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, who happens to be also Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority and not on the principles evolved for allotment of the house under the scheme in question. Respondent No. 3, who is wife of the gunner of the Commissioner, does not fall in any category whatsoever and accordingly, the allotment in her favour is fit to be quashed and/ or nullified by this Court and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be commanded to allot the house in question in favour of the petitioner who has fulfilled all the necessary terms and conditions and has also admittedly deposited the amount as claimed by her. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in reply contended as follows :-SINCE directions were made by the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority for allotting the house in favour of the wife of his gunner, its officials were obliged to allot that house to Respondent No. 3 and in doing so no irregularity and/or impropriety has been committed. 1 and 2 in reply contended as follows :-SINCE directions were made by the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority for allotting the house in favour of the wife of his gunner, its officials were obliged to allot that house to Respondent No. 3 and in doing so no irregularity and/or impropriety has been committed. It is a fact, however, that the wife of the gunner of the Commissioner of Moradabad Division - Cum - Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority does not figure in any of the specialised category. He however, very fairly admitted of the applicability of the principle of first come first served and of the fact that the petitioner had deposited the amount from time to itme as per the requirement. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 contended as follows :-SINCE the husband of Respondent No. 3 was serving the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority no wrong has been committed in allotting the house in question. ( 9 ) WE are astonished to learn of the direction issued by the highest executive of the Commissionary who is the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority. The scheme in question never permitted an allotment of house in favour of wife of a gunner/body guard of any of the officials of the Moradabad Development Authority. Apparently the direction issued showed favouritism which is impermissible and against the Constitutional philosophy enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Further it is indeed regrettable that the repeated cry of the destitute widow, who has lost her son and was residing in a dilapidated house on rent, had gone in vain. Admittedly she had5 complied with all the terms and conditions imposed for allotment of the house under the scheme in question and her learned counsel assures further compliance by her of the remaining terms and conditions. To have a house for shelter is a basic requirement of every citizen of our country. We are satisfied that her right has been breached and she has been coerced to knock the doors of this Court for securing justice. We hold that she is entitled to have the house, apart from suitable damages. ( 10 ) IN the result we quash the order of allotment of the house in question in favour of Respondent No. 3 and command Respondent Nos. We hold that she is entitled to have the house, apart from suitable damages. ( 10 ) IN the result we quash the order of allotment of the house in question in favour of Respondent No. 3 and command Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allot the house in question in favour of the petitioner provided she shows her willingness to comply with the remaining terms and conditions, and allow this writ petition with cost quantified however, to Rs. 2,000. 00 (Rupees two thousand) only which must be paid by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within three months from today. ( 11 ) THE office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for its intimation to and follow up action by them. Petition allowed. .