JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This Court by a common judgment rendered on 25th of August, 1999 while disposed of O.J.C. Nos. 4321 and 4738 of 1999 by directing the Orissa State Housing Board (in short "Board") to forthwith deliver possession of the houses as indicated in the allotment orders issued in favour of the said writ petitioners, namely, Smt. Snehalata Parida and Smt. Ashalata Routray respectively, dismissed O.J.C. No. 9938 of 1999 filed by the Chandrasekharpur Housing Board Colony Unnayan Samiti (in short "Samiti") challenging the allotment orders issued in favour of the aforesaid two writ petitioners. The Samiti challenged the aforesaid judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 3180-3182 of 2000 and the Apex Court on May 1, 2000, while allowing the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and sent back the matters to this Court by passing the following orders : "Leave granted.' The Orissa Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") constructed two model houses which are in dispute in,the present appeal. It appears that these two houses were subsequently allotted to Smt. Snehalata Parida and Smt. Ashalata Routray, Since the possession was not being delivered to them, they filed writ petition Nos, OJC 4321/99 and OJC 4738/99 before the High Court of Orissa. In the meantime the appellants also filed a petition OJC No. 9938/99 challenging the order of allotment in favour of Smt. Snehalata Parida and Smt. Ashalata Routray. The High Court took a view that the allotment made was in accordance with law and, therefore, issued directions to the Board to deliver the possession of the said houses to the allottees. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed whereas the petitions filed by the allottees were allowed. It is against the said decision of the High Court the appellant is in appeal before us. One of the questions involved in this appeal is whether the respondents Smt. Snehalata Parida and Smt. Ashalata Routray were entitled to allotment of the two model houses. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in view of the fact stated in the counter affidavit that these respondents own a house and, therefore, are not eligible for allotment. However, we find that this question was not raised before the High Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in view of the fact stated in the counter affidavit that these respondents own a house and, therefore, are not eligible for allotment. However, we find that this question was not raised before the High Court. We, therefore, feel that it would be appropriate if we send this case back to the High Court for decision on the question whether the respondents were eligible for allotment of the said premises or not. Consequently, the judgment and order is set aside. The matter is sent back to the High Court for deciding the same in the light of what has been stated above. The appeals are allowed......" 2. Therefore, the sole question to be decided by this Court is whether the two allottees, namely, Smt. Snehalaia Parida and Smt. Ashalata Routray own houses and are, therefore, not eligible for allotment of the houses in question. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts are that the Board constructed certain model houses in Chandrasekharpur area of Bhubaneswar for the purpose of ultimately creating housing colonies in terms of such model houses. In the process, two model houses were constructed in that area in 1990 and ultimately the said houses were termed as "condemned houses" as the said model houses were abandoned because of cost factor. Subsequenlly the Board decided to sell away those two model houses. The petitioners applied for the same and ultimately allotment order, were issued in favour of the petitioners in OJC Nos. 4321 and 4738 of 1999. The petitioners deposited the entire amount so fixed by the Board. When the Board did not hand over possession of the houses in question, the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions with a prayer to direct the Board to hand over possession of those two houses as per the agreements and orders of allotment vide Annexures 4 and 5 respectively. At this juncture, the Samiti raised objection against the aforesaid allotment and ultimately filed OJC No. 9938 of 1999 praying for quashing the aforesaid allotment orders and for a direction to the Board to allow the aforesaid model houses at Chandrasekharpur Housing Board Colony, Phase-l, to be utilised for the purpose of post-office and dispensary. At this juncture, the Samiti raised objection against the aforesaid allotment and ultimately filed OJC No. 9938 of 1999 praying for quashing the aforesaid allotment orders and for a direction to the Board to allow the aforesaid model houses at Chandrasekharpur Housing Board Colony, Phase-l, to be utilised for the purpose of post-office and dispensary. All the three writ petitions being inter-linked were heard together and were disposed of by the common judgment, as stated above, against which the Samiti carried appeals to the Apex Court and the Apex Court passed the order which is quoted in the foregoing paragraph. 4. To decide the question, as stated above, let me take up the case of the petitioner-Smt. Snehalata Parida of OJC No. 4321 of 1999. In the counter affidavit filed by one Narayan Dash, Secretary of the Samiti (O.P. No. 2), it has been alleged that the Board has not only entertained the application of the petitioner for allotment surreptitiously but has also deliberately ignored the mandate of the Board's Regulations. This aspect is not to be considered by this Court in view of the specific remand order of the Apex Court. In para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, it is stated thus : "6. That the authority of the Board could not know the fact of existence of another house on plot No. 214, Airport Colony, Bhubaneswar, owned by herfamily members till receipt of the copy of the SLP bearing No. 15024 to 1256/99 from the Hon'ble Supreme Court filed by Chandrasekharpur Unnayan Samiti....." In para 7, it is stated : "7. That after remand of the case from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner's husband Sri Sudam Chandra Das stated in the affidavit that he was residing with his parents in the house at Plot No. 1222 in Airport Colony. The house belonged to his mother which was a self-acquired property and was in joint occupation of all the family members including his brothers. The house belonged to his mother which was a self-acquired property and was in joint occupation of all the family members including his brothers. The petitioner also stated in the affidavit in April, 2001 that she was residing with her husband in the said house and the said house belonged to her mother-in-law." In view of the contradiction in the aforesaid affidavit, so far as the number of the plot is concerned, by orders dated 31.7.2001 and 14.8.2001, this Court directed the Law Officer of the Board to clarify whether petitioner's mother (sic. mother-in-law) owns a house in Bhubaneswar. That apart, he was also directed to clearly state the ownership of plot No. 214 at Airport Colony. In order to substantiate the claim that the petitioner's husband owns a house at Airport Colony in Bhubaneswar, the Secretary of the Board was also directed to file an affidavit. Pursuant to the said directions, the Law Officer has filed an affidavit on 21.8.2001. In para 1 thereof, it is stated thus : "That on 31.1.2001, the deponent filed an affidavit before this Hon'ble Court and stated in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit that the petitioner in her counter affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the first time mentioned that her husband owned a house but it was inadequate to accommodate all the members of her family. Such knowledge of the deponent is only from the said SLP bearing Nos. 15024 to 15026 of 1999 and from no other source." To the same effect is the affidavit filed by Dr. Rabinarayan Patnaik, the Secretary 1/C. of the Board. Therefore, there is nothing in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Samiti to indicate that the petitioner or her husband owns a house at Bhubaneswar. The affidavit filed by the petitioner indicates that her contention before the Apex Court as well as this Court was the same because, according to her, in para 3 of the affidavit filed before the Apex Court it was staled thus : "that the respondent No. 3 has no other house either in her name or in the name of her husband in Bhubaneswar and, therefore, she was in need of a residential accommodation." An affidavit has also been filed by the husband of the petitioner, namely, Sudani Charan Das, who has distinctly clarified the position thus : ".... I do not own any house in Bhubaneswar or at any place in India. At present I am residing with my parents at Plot No. 1222, Air Field Colony, the house belonging to my mother which is her self-acquired property and purchased from private and is in joint occupation of all the family members including my brothers." In order to clarify as to whether it is plot No. 214 or plot No. 1222 in Air Field Colony, the petitioner herself has stated in her counter affidavit as follows : "Plot No. 214 which is now known as plot No. 1222 in the latest settlement, stands in the name of mother-in-law of the petitioner...." The petitioner has also filed the sale deed executed in favour of her mother-in-law (Annexure-B) and the R.O.R. (Annexure-11) along with the counter affidavit showing that the name of her mother-in-law as the owner of the property. The aforesaid documents also support the statement made by the petitioner and fully clarifies the position regarding the Plot No. Nothing has, however, been produced either by the Board or the Samiti to substantiate their allegation that the petitioner's husband is having a house in Bhubaneswar, save and except the affidavit filed by the Board authorities stating that the fact that the authorities of the Board for the first time came to know from the SLP regarding the contention of the petition that the petitioner's husband owned a flat at 214, Air Field Colony, which was borrowed from the aforesaid SLP filed before the Apex Court where there was some misunderstanding regarding the Plot No. which was subsequently clarified in the two affidavits filed by the petitioner as well as her husband along with the R.O.R. indicating clearly therein that the plot belongs to the mother-in-law of the petitioner. In other words, no material of any kind is produced either by the Samiti or the Board to prove that plot No. 214, Air Field Colony, which corresponds to Plot No. 1222 in the current settlement, belongs to the petitioner's husband. On the other hand, the R.O.R. filed before this Court clearly indicates that the aforesaid plot belongs to the mother-in-law of the petitioner. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it can safely be concluded that neither the petitioner nor her husband owns a house or property at Bhubaneswar. On the other hand, the R.O.R. filed before this Court clearly indicates that the aforesaid plot belongs to the mother-in-law of the petitioner. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it can safely be concluded that neither the petitioner nor her husband owns a house or property at Bhubaneswar. The petitioner is, therefore, eligible for allotment of the house in question and the Board is directed to forthwith deliver possession of the house to the petitioner Smt. Snehalata Parida. 6. Now, let me examine the case of the petitioner-Smt. Ashalata Routray in OJC no. 4738 of 1999. After the remand, while the petitioner has filed an affidavit, the Board has filed two affidavits - one by its Secretary-in-charge Dr. Rabtnarayan Patnaik pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 7.2.2001 and Anr. by its Law Officer, Basanta Kumar Martha. The Samiti, O. P. No. 2, has filed a counter affidavit through its Secretary-Narayan Dash. The petitioner in her affidavit filed on 22.4.2001 has stated that her husband-Madhu Madhab Jena was allotted with a house bearing No. MIG-II-23/4 in the Housing Board Colony, Phase-l, at Chandrasekharpur, in the year 1988. In 1995 her husband made an application to the Board, copy of which is annexed to the affidavit as Annexure-8, for allotment of a bigger house, i.e., HIG house, as the MIG house, which he was occupying was not sufficient to accommodate his Notary Public Office and his family consisting his wife, two school-going children and old parents, who were staying with him. It was also indicated therein that the petitioner's husband was eligible for HIG house as per his income as disclosed in the return submitted to the Income Tax Department. The aforesaid application (Annexure-8) bears the seal of the Board which indicates receipt of the application on 25.8.1995. In view of the facts disclosed by the petitioner in the aforesaid affidavit, nothing has come out from the Board excepting a bald denial in the further affidavit that no such application as at Annexure-8 was received by the Board in 1995. Be that as it may, the petitioner in her affidavit has indicated the names of 15 persons who have got two houses allotted by the Board in Bhubaneswar. The Board in its affidavit has stated that ah enquiry was conducted in the matter and during the pendency of the writ petitions, show cause notices were issued against such persons. Be that as it may, the petitioner in her affidavit has indicated the names of 15 persons who have got two houses allotted by the Board in Bhubaneswar. The Board in its affidavit has stated that ah enquiry was conducted in the matter and during the pendency of the writ petitions, show cause notices were issued against such persons. Some of the allottees have submitted applications for transfer of one of their houses in favour of certain persons and some have already sold one of such houses. But the fact remains that even after allotment of one house, another house has been allotted to certain individuals by the Board. From the aforesaid facts the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner's husband had made an application to the Board for allotment of a second house on the ground that the existing house was insufficient for his accommodation and the said application was received by the Board on 25.8.1995, as would appear from the seal put on the said application, and it was known to the Board that the petitioner's husband had a house, at Bhubaneswar. Now, it is to be seen whether the petitioner is eligible for allotment of the house in question when her husband has already owned a house in Bhubaneswar. In this connection, my attention is drawn to Regulation 8 .of the Orissa Housing Board Allotment Regulations, 1970, which deals with eligibility for allotment of house. The said Regulation 8 is extracted hereunder: "8. In this connection, my attention is drawn to Regulation 8 .of the Orissa Housing Board Allotment Regulations, 1970, which deals with eligibility for allotment of house. The said Regulation 8 is extracted hereunder: "8. Eligibility for allotment : No person shall be eligible for allotment who himself or whose husband/ wife/minor children/father/mother owns or has been allotted a house in the locality by the Board or by any other authority : Provided that the Board may in its discretion relax this condition in cases where the house owned is found inadequate having regard to requirements of persons applying for allotment of a house : * * * * * *" In view of the above provision, the contention of the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, i.e. the Samiti, that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of the house in question as her husband owns a house, does not hold good, because by virtue of the provisions in Regulation 8, the Board has the discretion to relax the condition and allot a house where the house owned is found inadequate having regard to the requirements of person applying for allotment. There being an application since 1995 made by the husband of the petitioner.disclosing therein clearly and categorically that the MIG house allotted to him was not adequate to accommodate his office and family members, it goes without saying that while allotting the house in question in favour of the petitioner, no illegality has been committed by the Board. That apart, it is a fact that the Board has made allotment of second houses'in favour of several persons and the same has not been controverted by the Board, rather in the affidavit filed on behalf of it, it has been stated that steps have been taken for cancellation of such allotment made in favour of some persons and some other allottees have applied for transfer of the second houses to the names of some other persons and some allottees have already sold their second houses. The Board being clearly aware of the allotment so made, it is to be said that such allotments have been made by virtue of the relaxation clause in Regulation 8. Therefore, it can be safely said that the allotments have been made under the deemed relaxation. That apart, the Board in its further affidavit filed in reply to the affidavit of the petitioner dt. Therefore, it can be safely said that the allotments have been made under the deemed relaxation. That apart, the Board in its further affidavit filed in reply to the affidavit of the petitioner dt. 22.4.2001 has disclosed the names of allottees of second houses along with the Nos. and the localities of the houses. In para 8, it is further stated that so far as the allottees at SI. Nos. 5 to 15 are concerned, no illegality has been committed in allotting the said second houses as a decision had been taken by the Board in its 145th meeting held on 16.4.1988 for allotment of 2 or more houses but not exceeding 4 houses in EWS/LIG, Phase-t of Chandrasekharpur etc. if he so desired in view of blocking of funds due to lack of demand for these houses for limited plinth area. The minutes of the aforesaid meeting speaks as follows : "The Board approved the proposal of allotment of 2 or more houses but not exceeding 4 houses in EWS/LIG, Ph. I Chandrasekharpur, LIG Housing Scheme in Phase-II Chandrasekharpur and EWS flats in Basanti Colony, Rourkela to one applicant if he so desires in view of blocking of funds due to lack of demand, for these houses for limited plinth area." The aforesaid shows that the Board on different occasions has taken liberal view in the matter of allotment of second house, by relaxing its norms. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, i.e., Samiti, that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of the house in question as her husband is already in occupation of a house at Bhubaneswar. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the allotment of house made by the Board in favour of the petitioner-Smt. Ashalata Routray in OJC No. 4738 of 1999 is justified, and there is no illegality in such allotment. The Board is directed to forthwith deliver possession of the house in question to the petitioner. 8. In view of our observations and direction with regard to the writ petitions, OJC Nos. 4321 and 4738 of 1999, the writ petition OJC No. 9938 of 1999 filed by the Samiti stands dismissed. 9. In the result, OJC Nos. The Board is directed to forthwith deliver possession of the house in question to the petitioner. 8. In view of our observations and direction with regard to the writ petitions, OJC Nos. 4321 and 4738 of 1999, the writ petition OJC No. 9938 of 1999 filed by the Samiti stands dismissed. 9. In the result, OJC Nos. 4321 and 4738 of 1999 are allowed and OJC No. 9938 of 1999 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.