Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2240 (MAD)

B. Renuka v. Darmendra Pratap Yadav

2011-04-20

P.JYOTHIMANI

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The contempt complained of by the petitioner in the writ petition in w.P.No.21249 of 2007 is in respect of the order passed by this Court in the above said writ petition dated 8.8.2008 and the relevant portion of the order is as follows: “The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has, on instructions, submitted that whenever vacant arises in the category of MIG Flat, the petitioner’s name will be considered by the respondents. Recording the said submissions of the learned standing counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs. are closed.” 2. According to the petitioner, who is a widow, is residing in a rented house. On her application made to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for allotment of a flat in Foreshore Estate area belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, particularly the flat No.J4 which was vacant then, she was informed that it was not vacant. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the Secretary to the Government, Housing Board on 4.12.2004, to allot a MIG flat which would fall vacant in future and there was no reply. When she came to know that the flat No.H3, Foreshore Estate was vacant, she made a representation on 5.6.2007. Since the petitioner apprehended that her name was likely to be bypassed, she approached this Court by filing the above said writ petition, in which the above said order came to be passed. 3. Even though the above said order came to be passed, according to the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any steps even to allot MIG G-4 flat at Foreshore Estate which was vacant and hence, she filed the present petition. In the meantime, the Housing Board flat, MIG A-3 which is coming under public quota came to be vacant in Lloyds Colony and the petitioner made an application on 14.10.2010, however, one Mrs.Vasanthi Stanley made application on 16.12.2010 for allotment of the same and she was allotted and therefore, the petitioner filed Sub Application Nos.24 and 25 of 2011 for direction not to hand over the said flat to the said Vasanthi Stanley and also to cancel the allotment. 4. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in the main contempt petition, it is stated that even though an undertaking was given for the purpose of considering the petitioner’s case whenever vacancy arises in the category of MIG flat, that itself does not confer any right on her in respect of allotment of a flat as the same depends upon various factors and various norms. It is also stated that while the above said order was passed by this Court, the Government was not heard and therefore, as far as the second respondent Government is concerned, there is absolutely no disobedience of the order. The writ petition itself is for a Mandamus directing the respondents to allot the flat MIG H3 in Foreshore Estate and at that time, the said flat was not vacant. Thereafter, the petitioner requested to allot the flat MIG G4 and it was in those circumstances, her original request for allotment of flat No.H3 was not considered. In the meantime, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.3668 of 2010 for direction to allot MIG flat No.G4 in Foreshore Estate and that was dismissed on 24.2.2010. As far as the allotment of flat under public quota is concerned, it is governed by certain norms and seniority apart from non-possession of Government/Housing Board rental flat either in the name of the person concerned or in the name of spouse, non-owning of house/flat either in the name of person or in the name of spouse, etc. It is stated that in that regard, there are limited number of units available in the City of Chennai and many persons are waiting in the queue. The order passed by this Court is only to consider the case of petitioner when the vacancy arises and that also subject to other conditions such as, seniority and therefore, the allotment cannot be made as a matter of right. It is stated that there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court. 5. Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that when admittedly subsequent vacancy arose, the same was not given to the petitioner in spite of the undertaking given before this Court. It is stated that there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court. 5. Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that when admittedly subsequent vacancy arose, the same was not given to the petitioner in spite of the undertaking given before this Court. It is also his submission that the conduct of the respondents in allotting another flat to Mrs.Vasanthi Stanley, who is already occupying Government quarters in Kilpauk Garden, Chennai which is opposed to the guidelines of the Government. It is also stated that even as on date, MIG flat No.G4 is vacant and that should be allotted to the petitioner by virtue of the undertaking given by the Government. 6. On the other hand, it is the case of Mr. P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent, that the second respondent Government, though shown as a party to the writ petition, was not given notice and the second respondent has never been represented in the writ petition. 7. Mr.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the undertaking given by the Housing Board for the purpose of considering as and when vacancy arises is only subject to usual norms and procedure and that does not mean that the petitioner should be given in the next vacancy and there is no order of this Court that the petitioner should be considered in the next vacancy. 8. On the face of the records, and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it is true that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the Government was not given notice and the first respondent Housing Board alone gave an undertaking that whenever vacancy arises in MIG flats, the petitioner’s name would be considered and recording the same, the writ petition was disposed of. Therefore, there is absolutely no contempt against the second respondent and no contempt proceedings against the second respondent would lie. 9. Even in respect of the first respondent, Housing Board, there is no positive direction directing the first respondent to allot any flat to the petitioner. That apart, allotment of flat is not a matter of right of anyone and it depends upon seniority and various other criteria to be followed by the Housing Board. 9. Even in respect of the first respondent, Housing Board, there is no positive direction directing the first respondent to allot any flat to the petitioner. That apart, allotment of flat is not a matter of right of anyone and it depends upon seniority and various other criteria to be followed by the Housing Board. Therefore, simply because this Court recorded the undertaking given on behalf of the Housing Board that in the future vacancy that arises, the petitioner’s case would be considered, it does not mean that the petitioner has got vested right of a flat being allotted. 10. As far as the allotment stated to have been made to one Mrs.Vasanthi Stanley is concerned, the same is under public quota and that is not an issue in the writ petition at all. Hence, the sub applications cannot also be entertained. 11. Accordingly, I see no reasons to come to a conclusion that there is any deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court. The mere undertaking cannot be deemed to be a violation to enable this Court to proceed with the contempt proceedings. In such view of the matter, the contempt petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The sub applications are also dismissed. However, the dismissal of the contempt petition does not mean that the first respondent Housing Board is not required to consider the name of the petitioner in accordance with seniority and other criteria for the purpose of allotment of a flat as per the order of this Court made in the writ petition.