Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 253 (JHR)

Meera Srivastava v. Jharkhand State Housing Board

2011-03-28

R.R.PRASAD

body2011
Order This writ application has been on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the orders as contained in letter nos. 816, 781, 777, 791, 797, 795, 804 all dated 18.10.2006 whereby the respondent-Board cancelled the allotment of HIG flats no. 6, 8, 12, 17, 18, 44, 95 and 117 situated at Housing Colony, Hirapur, Dhanbad which had been made in favour of the petitioners illegally and directed the petitioners to vacate the flats. 2. The case of the petitioners is that when respondent-Board invited applications for settlement of unit constructed at Hirapur Housing Colony at Dhanbad, petitioners applied for the allotment of the quarters and also deposited the requisite fees. Thereupon, the aforesaid flats were allotted to the petitioners on deposit of security money of Rs. 750/- Subsequently, an agreement was executed on 6.9.2006 on which date the petitioners were allowed to occupy the quarters. Since then, all the petitioners were living peacefully Suddenly the petitioners received a letter dated 18.10.2006 as contained in Annexure-3 series whereby it was intimated that allotment has been cancelled as the allotment had been made by the Executive Engineer of the Board who had no authority to do so. The said order as contained in letters dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure-3 series) have been sought to be quashed on the ground that the said order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to have their say in the matter. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board stating therein that under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme (in short 'S.I.H.S.'), a Central Government Sponsored Scheme, 144 S.I.H.S. flats were constructed at Dhanbad in the year 1980. All those flats were meant for hire purchase allotment and not for allotment on rental basis. For that purpose an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 13.3.2005 for allotment of 56 flats on hire purchase allotment through lottery whereby applications were invited in prescribed form (to be purchased from the concerned division for Rs. 500/-) but the then Executive Engineer, Arjun Prasad in connivance with other staff of the Board and with the petitioners allotted quarters in question to the petitioners, who had never put application in proper format nor any document required to be produced with the form had been submitted. 500/-) but the then Executive Engineer, Arjun Prasad in connivance with other staff of the Board and with the petitioners allotted quarters in question to the petitioners, who had never put application in proper format nor any document required to be produced with the form had been submitted. The allotment had been made on simple application that too on rental basis though those quarters were meant for hire purchase allotment. 4. Under that situation, when allotments made to the petitioners were cancelled through letter dated 18.10.2006, one of the allotters, namely, Smt. Somlata preferred a writ application, vide W.P.(C) No. 6220 of 2006 challenging the said letter under which allotment had been cancelled. This Court on 10.11.2006 quashed the order canceling the allotment as that order had been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, the order was held to be arbitrary and illegal. 5. It has been averred further that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Executive Engineer, who succeeded to the previous Executive Engineer, Arjun Prasad issued show cause notice to the persons including the petitioners to whom allotment was made illegally calling upon them to submit show cause as to whether they had submitted applications in prescribed form, pursuant to the advertisement issued in this respect and that whether the allotment was justified. But no show cause was submitted by any of the petitioners. 6. However, again an opportunity was given to them by issuing notices to show cause vide letters dated 20.12.2006 whereby they were again called upon to justify the allotment. Only six, out of eight petitioners submitted their show cause but they failed to submit the required documents. Show cause submitted by them, on being found unsatisfactory, were rejected. Consequently, the Executive Engineer made recommendation for cancelling the allotment. Accordingly, allotments made to the petitioners were cancelled but those orders had never been challenged by the petitioners. Hence, on this ground alone this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 7. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly the impugned orders as contained in letter dated 18.10.2006 have been issued without affording any opportunity and hence, the same are fit to be set aside. 8. Hence, on this ground alone this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 7. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly the impugned orders as contained in letter dated 18.10.2006 have been issued without affording any opportunity and hence, the same are fit to be set aside. 8. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents Board, I do find that an advertisement was made by the Board for allotment of the quarters constructed under the S.I.H. Scheme, under which scheme, it were to be settled through hire purchase agreement. Therefore, the applications were invited through advertisement whereby intending persons were called upon to submit their applications in prescribed format with the requisite documents but the petitioners never seem to have made application for allotment under the prescribed format. In spite of that, the quarters were allotted to the petitioners on rental basis by the then Executive Engineer, Arjun Prasad who had no authority to allot the quarters, rather the authority had been vested by the Board upon the allotment committee and that too the quarters were never meant to be allotted on rental basis, rather it was supposed to be allotted on hire purchase agreement. On detecting such illegality, allotment was cancelled, vide letters dated 18.10.2006 which was sought to be quashed on the ground that the order of cancellation has been passed without affording any opportunity but I do find from the statement made in the counter affidavit that subsequent to passing of the order as contained in letter dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure-3 series), show cause was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show that the flats had been allotted to them validly. On submission of the show cause by some of the petitioners, the authority did find that the allotment of the quarters in favour of the petitioners had been made by the Executive Engineer who had no authority to allot the quarters and that those quarters were never meant for allotment on rental basis rather it were to be allotted through lottery on hire purchase agreement and that the applications were never submitted in prescribed format. Therefore, it was found that the allotment of the quarters in question to the petitioners was quite illegal. 9. Thus, when the allotment has been cancelled after affording opportunity to the petitioners, there appears to be absolutely no illegality. Therefore, it was found that the allotment of the quarters in question to the petitioners was quite illegal. 9. Thus, when the allotment has been cancelled after affording opportunity to the petitioners, there appears to be absolutely no illegality. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, the same stands dismissed.