Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 279 (JHR)

Sulekha Singh v. Jharkhand State Housing Board

2009-02-19

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
Order In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the letter dated 14/19.11.2005 issued by the respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to inform that the allotment of Or. No. 4211-6 in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled and in suppression of letter No. 1446 dated 10.6.2004 allotment of the said quarter to respondent No.3 is restored. The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forbear them from giving effect to, acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the said letter dated 14/ 19.11.2005 issued by the respondent No.2. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:- The quarter No. 42/1-6 was earlier allotted to respondent No. 3 vide letter No. 266-A dated 27.5.1992 in accordance with the decision taken in the meeting No. 94/121 of the Housing Board held on 21.1.1985. On 24.7.1997 a hire purchase agreement was executed between Bihar State Housing Board through Executive. Engineer and respondent No.3 and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was received from respondent No.3 vide receipt No. 30 dated 26.11.2005. Subsequently a letter dated 10.6.2004 vide memo No. 1447 was issued in favour of petitioner M/s S.K. Engineering Works indicating that the application of the petitioner to allot the quarter in question on monthly rent will be considered on deposit of Rs. 6197/-. The petitioner thereafter deposited the said amount' and receipt was given on 14.6.2004 and accordingly an agreement was entered into allotting the quarter in question to the petitioner on monthly rent. The impugned order dated 19.11.2005 was issued cancelling the allotment on monthly rent in favour of the petitioner indicating that false information was given under which the quarter was allotted and accordingly the order of allotment on rent dated 10.6.2004 was withdrawn/cancelled. 3. The main contention raised by the. I petitioner is that the order is per se illegal, arbitrary and without following the procedure established by law. It has also been contended that no opportunity of hearing was given before cancellation of the allotment of the quarter in question. 4. 3. The main contention raised by the. I petitioner is that the order is per se illegal, arbitrary and without following the procedure established by law. It has also been contended that no opportunity of hearing was given before cancellation of the allotment of the quarter in question. 4. In reply the private respondent No.3 has submitted that he was actually allotted the quarter in question pursuant to the Board's decision and the hire purchase agreement was also executed and the amount demanded was also paid which was duly receipted vide receipt dated 26.11.2005. It is also submitted that the quarter was never allotted to the petitioner instead it was on monthly rent based on a scheme and the petitioner gave a false information for allotment on rent. 5. The Board, in its counter affidavit has submitted that even though the quarter was allotted on rental basis under the subsidized industrial housing scheme but the application dated 8.6.2004 filled up by the petitioner that she is an employee of S.K. Engineering Works since 5th December, 1998 was later found to be false and immediately on coming to know that fact the impugned order dated 19.11.2005 was issued cancelling the allotment on rent and further to restore the allotment in favour of respondent No.3. It has also been submitted that as per the letter issued by the S.K. Engineering Works the petitioner has left the job on 16.3.2006 and it has also annexed two certificates in this regard issued by S.K. Engineering Works dated 23.7.2006 and 10.11.2006. In these backgrounds it has been alleged that the declaration regarding the employment of S.K. Engineering Works since 1998 given by the petitioner was false. 6. In the instant case an I.A. No. 15 of 2009 has also been filed seeking direction to return back the possession of the room occupied by respondent No. 3 illegally in the quarter allotted to the petitioner. It has been stated in the I.A. that the interim protection granted on 10.3.2006 has been violated by respondent No.3 and it has also annexed all the money receipts paid by the petitioner. 7. I have considered the pleadings and the arguments on behalf of the parties and the admitted fact remains that the petitioner was allotted the quarter in question on monthly rent and there is no default on payment of rent nor there is any such allegation. 7. I have considered the pleadings and the arguments on behalf of the parties and the admitted fact remains that the petitioner was allotted the quarter in question on monthly rent and there is no default on payment of rent nor there is any such allegation. The fact remains that due to laches and delay the quarter in question which was initially allotted to respondent No. 3 was cancelled and only thereafter the quarter was allotted to the petitioner on the condition of making payment of Rs. 6,197/- which was complied with and possession was handed over and ever since then regular rent till date has been paid. It is also on record that the enquiry, was entrusted to be conducted and a report was submitted in favour of the petitioner that the quarter was allotted to her. I have also perused the impugned order dated 19.11.2005 which is not only vague but does not assign any reason for cancellation of the allotment nor it has accorded any opportunity to explain and strangely the same letter also states that the allotment of the quarter in question to Bijli Singh, respondent No.3 herein, is restored. 8. The entire action of the Housing Board is on the face of it illegal, arbitrary and against the well settled principles of natural justice. It is a strange case where not even a reason has been assigned nor a show cause was given before canceling the allotment. The allotment letter also does not specify any time period. Be that as it may, the law in this regard is well settled that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due procedures established by law. The respondent, Housing Board it, a creature of statute and is bound to act within four corners thereof in accordance with well established rule of law. The fact remains that the allotment of quarter in favour of respondent No.3 was cancelled on account of laches and default on their part and the same has been restored vide the same impugned order without assigning any reason after a lapse of over 13 years. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.11.2005 is accordingly quashed. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.11.2005 is accordingly quashed. However, it goes without saying that the respondent, Housing Board can certainly initiate action in accordance with law and as per the rules and procedures established by law.