Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1527 (DEL)

MOHAN KALRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL

2006-08-31

G.S.SISTANI, SWATANTER KUMAR

body2006
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) ALL the 26 petitioners in WP (C) No. 10077-102/ 2006 as well as Mr. Mool Chand Vijay, petitioner in WP (C) 11953/2006 are aggrieved from the action of the respondents in allotting kiosks/shops/space in the rohini Courts Complex being in violation to the terms and conditions stated in the notice inviting application dated 20th/21 st April, 2006. According to the petitioners, the same have been allotted to some persons in a most arbitrary manner. The respondents are stated to have violated, in substance and spirit, the contents of the notice by holding draw of lots in a close room instead of before all the 3,000 applicants. Thus, they pray that the allotments made vide order dated 24th May, 2006 be quashed and the respondents be directed to conduct a fresh draw of lots at the designated venue and in presence of all the applicants in accordance with law. ( 2 ) THE facts as they emerge from the record are that the respondents had issued a notice inviting applications for allotment of kiosks/shops/space on 20th/21st april, 2006 in the Courts complex at Rohini. On 25th April, 2006, a public notice was issued in supersession of the earlier notice dated 20th/21 st April, 2006 in terms whereof the cost of the application was specified at Rs. 1,000/- and it also stated that the terms and conditions of allotment could be obtained along with the application form from the caretaking branch of the said district Courts complex. The petitioners had applied for allotment in the Rohini Courts Complex in terms of the said advertisement. According to the petitioners, there were approximately 3,000 applicants. Some of the petitioners belonged to the categories of Ex-serviceman, physically handicapped and SC/st. On 24th May, 2006, the petitioners at about 2 p. m. , reached the Rohini Courts Complex for the purpose of draw of lots. Upon making inquiries from the Administrative Officer's office, the petitioners were informed that a list of successful allottees would be released and the applicants could check the said list later. On 24th May, 2006, the petitioners at about 2 p. m. , reached the Rohini Courts Complex for the purpose of draw of lots. Upon making inquiries from the Administrative Officer's office, the petitioners were informed that a list of successful allottees would be released and the applicants could check the said list later. Being bewildered by the information given by that office, the petitioners approached the chamber of the Judge Incharge, located on the fourth floor of the complex where the draw of lots was to take place at 3 p. m. Nearly 2500 applicants were present at the site to have the draw of lots conducted in their presence. There the petitioners were told by the police authorities that the draw of lots would take place downstairs on the ground floor and all the applicants in pursuance to such information shifted to ground floor but no such draw of lots was held in their presence. The petitioners kept on waiting at the premises till 7 p. m. , however, nothing happened and on the next day when they went to the premises on 25th May, 2006 in the morning, they were shocked to see the list of successful applicants displayed on the gate of the Courts complex. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED from this action of the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. It is stated that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct the draw of lots in an open place and in presence of all the 2500 applicants who were present at the premises. The entire procedure conducted being violative of fair play, caused suspicion in the action of the respondents. As regards the weightage alleged to be given to reserved categories, no normal guidelines have been stated and as such, the entire process is arbitrary and is contrary to the basic rule of law and deserves to be quashed. ( 4 ) COMMON affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was filed wherein it has been stated that there was no obligation upon the respondents to conduct the draw of lots in an open place and in presence of 3,000 applicants. The draw of lots has been conducted strictly in terms of the conditions of the notice inviting applications. It is stated that list of successful candidates was displayed on the notice board at 7. The draw of lots has been conducted strictly in terms of the conditions of the notice inviting applications. It is stated that list of successful candidates was displayed on the notice board at 7. 30 p. m. on 24th May, 2006 and the same was also sent to the learned District Judge, Delhi and the Website Committee of the District and sessions Court on the same day. In regard to reservation, it is stated that the weightage for reserved categories has actually been given which is also evident from the list of successful applicants. 10 persons out of 44 successful persons are from SC/st/physically handicapped/ ex-servicemen categories. Separate draw of lots was held for the reserved categories with weightage of 15%, 7%, 3% and 1 % respectively. It is also stated that the petitioners have no locus standi even to question the correctness of such allotments as none of them falls under the reserved category. ( 5 ) FROM the record, it is clear that everybody was put to notice that application forms could be obtained from the Office of Care Taking Branch along with general terms and conditions of allotment on any day after 28th April, 2006 on payment of rs. 1,000/- which was non-refundable. Last date for submission of applications was 10. 5. 2006. Out of the terms and conditions for allotment which were circulated by the respondents to the applicants who obtained the application forms, condition nos. 9 and 10 are relevant and can be usefully reproduced at this stage:9. That the allotment would be by draw of lots which is scheduled to take place on 24. 5. 2006 at 3 p. m. in the chamber of Judge Incharge, Rohini courts. The draw can be postponed by the authorities at the discretion of the authorities. 10. That the decision of the authorities to allot or not allot the shop/kiosk/ space would be final and no correspondence of any kind in this regard shall be entertained. ( 6 ) THE petitioners have also referred to condition No. 9 in support of their case. As per this condition, the allotment was to be made by draw of lots which was to take place on 24th May, 2006 at 3 p. m. in the chamber of Judge Incharge, Rohini courts. ( 6 ) THE petitioners have also referred to condition No. 9 in support of their case. As per this condition, the allotment was to be made by draw of lots which was to take place on 24th May, 2006 at 3 p. m. in the chamber of Judge Incharge, Rohini courts. This condition has clearly informed the applicants that the draw of lots would be held in the chamber of the Judge Incharge. The entire argument of the petitioners that the draw of lots was to be held in an open space and in presence of all the applicants is without any merit. Having filled up the application forms with open eyes, the petitioners cannot be permitted to plead contrary to the terms of the notice inviting applications for allotment of kiosks and shops, etc. There can be no dispute to the fact that the draw of lots was conducted in the Chamber of the Judge incharge by a Committee. On the repeated requests of the Counsel for the petitioners, we had even called for the original records relating to allotment of shops and kiosks in the Rohini Courts Complex. It is clear from the record that on 24. 6. 2006, the draw of lots was conducted in the Chamber of the Judge Incharge, rohini Courts. Besides the Chairman and Members of the Building Maintenance committee, two other Additional District and Sessions Judges of Rohini Courts, delhi were also present and after the draw of lots was concluded and list was prepared, the minutes were signed by all i. e. the Chairman and four Members. The list was prepared on 24th May, 2006 and on that very day, copy thereof was sent to the following: No. BMC/ctb/2006/04 Date : 24. 5. 2006 Copy to: 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi for perusal of copies of minutes and list of successful applicants. 2. Ld. Distt. & Sessions judge, Delhi 3. Notice Board at District Courts, Rohini , Tis Hazari , Patiala House and Karkardooma for affixation. 4. For affixation at conspicious place i. e. gate Nos. 1, 4 and 5, District Courts, Rohini. 5. Website Committee, District Courts, Kakardooma , Delhi for display on Website of District Courts, Delhi . 2. Ld. Distt. & Sessions judge, Delhi 3. Notice Board at District Courts, Rohini , Tis Hazari , Patiala House and Karkardooma for affixation. 4. For affixation at conspicious place i. e. gate Nos. 1, 4 and 5, District Courts, Rohini. 5. Website Committee, District Courts, Kakardooma , Delhi for display on Website of District Courts, Delhi . Sd /- ( SATNAM SINGH) Judge Incharge District Courts, Rohini ( 7 ) NO applicant gets an indefeasible right much less a legal right merely by submitting an application. The applications are submitted subject to the terms and conditions of the notice inviting such applications as well as subject to the discretion of the authority to cancel the entire process or vary the same in public interest for valid reasons and in consonance with the terms and conditions of notice. In the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, 56 (1994) DLT 408 (SC) =1994 (6) SCC 292, the Supreme Court has held that draw of lots is not allotment by itself. It is only mere identification or selection of allottee and does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment at a price prevailing on the date of draw of lots. Unless the entire process was vitiated being violative of fair play or terms and conditions of the notice inviting such applications, no right would accrue to an applicant to question the correctness on flimsy grounds. The applicant is not clothed by any indefeasible right and he cannot dictate the authorities to vary the terms and conditions as he desires and contrary to the conditions contained in the advertisement. Reference can also be made to the cases of Somnath v. Shree Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal, 2001 (1) ICC 290 and Vijay Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. , Gurgaon v. Haryana Urban development Authority, 2001 (1) Vol. 127 PLR 29 (Pandh ). ( 8 ) IN view of the unambiguous language of condition No. 9 read in conjunction with condition No. 10 which makes the decision of the authority final and particularly when such decision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the allotment of kiosks and shops made by the respondents on 24. 5. 2006. 5. 2006. ( 9 ) COMING to the second argument raised on behalf of the petitioners in regard to reservation/weightage to the members of the reserved categories. Firstly, no details have been given in the writ petition making out any case of violation of articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the only ground taken as ground 'e' in the grounds challenging the action of the respondents is that the respondents have violated the statutory norms/regulations inasmuch as even though some weightage was required to be given to ex-servicemen but as per the list shown, no weightage has been given. The respondents have questioned the very locus standi of the petitioners to raise such an argument. Be that as it may, we have even examined the original record produced before us relating to this submission. It is clear that the word 'weightage' is a kind of misnomer. In fact, the respondents have granted reservation in accordance with law to different categories. Reservation and weightage are the synonymous expressions inasmuch as if weightage was given without any reservation, it would frustrate the entire object of draw of lots. It would lead to frustrative results as much beyond the number of kiosks/shops available for allotment, there were applicants for reserved categories. If all of them were granted weightage, they would have been given the same above other applicants, thus leaving no kiosk/shop/space for allotment to any other person or category. That was not the object of the rules and it has correctly been applied by the Committee. They have given reservation and held a separate draw of lots for the candidates belonging to the reserved category by giving weightage of 15%, 7%, 3% and 1 % to SC/st/physically handicapped/ex-servicemen respectively. Out of the 44 persons, only 10 persons in different reserved categories have been allotted the shops/kiosks/booths/space. This is certainly in conformity with the constitutional provisions. The petitioners have not brought to our notice any provision which can suggest that the action of the respondents in making this reservation is violative of any rule or regulation. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons afore stated, we find no merit in these petitions. The same are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.