Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 309 (PAT)

Harikant Thakur v. State of Bihar

2012-02-23

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioner is an applicant for allotment of Middle Income Group House in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board at Patna pursuant to registration of his request under Receipt No. P/1419960 dated 25.8.1975 and earnest deposit of Rs. 6500/- vide receipt dated 12.2.1981. Both the receipts are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Close perusal of the receipt also indicate that deposit of earnest money was made for allotment of M.I.G. House in Hanuman Nagar Colony of the Board at Patna. Aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected by the Manager Estate of the Board under Letter No. 2502 dated 12.06.2001 which was impugned before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11834 of 2003. The writ petition was disposed of under orders dated 07.05.2004 permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue his representation dated 15.06.2001 before the State Government. It appears representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2001 referred to in the earlier order of the High Court dated 07.05.2004, Annexure-3 to the writ petition remained pending with the authorities of the Government and petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 209 of 2006, praying, inter alia to direct the authorities to consider his request for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board at Patna on the basis of his registration dated 25.08.1975 and deposit of earnest money made on 12.2.1981. During the pendency of the writ petition Secretary of the Board issued Office Order No. 23/94 dated 13.3.2008, Annexure-9 to I.A. No. 342 of 2011 filed in the writ petition, whereunder in compliance of the resolution of the Board dated 14.2.2008 request of the petitioner for exchange of the allotted flat in Bahadurpur Housing Colony of the Board at Patna with a house in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board at Patna was rejected. This Court having considered the submission of the petitioner under orders dated 18.1.2011 directed the Managing Director of the Board to reconsider the request of the petitioner for exchange of his flat with a house in the Hanuman Nagar Colony of the Board at Patna, as was done in the case of Sri Girisdeo Pandey. This Court having considered the submission of the petitioner under orders dated 18.1.2011 directed the Managing Director of the Board to reconsider the request of the petitioner for exchange of his flat with a house in the Hanuman Nagar Colony of the Board at Patna, as was done in the case of Sri Girisdeo Pandey. While giving such direction this Court noted the fact that the allotment of the flat to the petitioner in the Bahadurpur Housing Colony of the Board was never accepted by the petitioner and such allotment may not deprive him of his claim for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Colony of Board in the light of the registration obtained by the petitioner in 1975 and deposit of earnest money made by him in 1981. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 18.1.2011 Board reconsidered the request of the petitioner for exchange under orders dated 05.09.2011 only after contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No. 2173 of 2011 was filed on 10.05.2011 and rejected the request for exchange under orders dated 05.09.2011, Annexure-S/1 to the show-cause filed in the contempt petition. 3. Having seen the order dated 05.09.2011 this Court passed order dated 11.11.2011 in the contempt case granting liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the order dated 18.1.2011 so as to enable the High Court to adjudicate the validity of the claim of the petitioner for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Colony of the Board on the basis of registration obtained by the petitioner in 1975 and deposit of earnest money made by him in 1981. As per the liberty granted under order dated 11.11.2011 petitioner filed Civil Review No. 482 of 2011 on 14.12.2011 and considering the prayer made in the review petition this Court passed order dated 16.12.2011 asking the Managing Director of the Board to consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board on the basis of the registration obtained by the petitioner in 1975 and deposit of earnest money made by him in 1981. In compliance of the order dated 16.12.2011 the Managing Director passed order dated 2.2.2012 rejecting the request of the petitioner for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board observing that his position in the seriatim of applicants for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board is at 900 and those who have been allotted House in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board were within 600. Aforesaid order dated 2.2.2012 is placed on record by way of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Managing Director in the review petition vide Annexure-R/1. After receipt of the order dated 2.2.2012 petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that it is absolutely incorrect and false on the part of the Managing Director to assert in his order dated 2.2.2012 that applicants who have been allotted house in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board are applicant prior to the petitioner and placed on record a list of 26 allottees vide Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit from which it appears that M/S Suhail Ahmad, B.K. Derhgavey, Saryug Prasad, Munsi Prasad Singh, Vashisht Narain Tiwari, Lakshman Prasad, M.Z. Ahmad, Mr. Basak deposited their earnest deposit much after the petitioner, as such, according to the petitioner he had a better claim over the aforesaid persons and Managing Director was misleading the High Court by telling that those who had deposited earnest money prior to the petitioner were only allotted house in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board. 4. After the aforesaid list was placed before this Court, this Court directed the counsel for the petitioner to hand over a copy of the list, Annexure-16 to the counsel for the Housing Board so as to enable him to seek instruction about the correctness or falsity of the order passed by the Managing Director dated 2.2.2012. Inspite of indulgence granted to the learned counsel, he has not been able to seek any instruction from the Managing Director of the Board in the light of Annexure-16. Inspite of indulgence granted to the learned counsel, he has not been able to seek any instruction from the Managing Director of the Board in the light of Annexure-16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Board has not been fairly considering the case of the petitioner which is evident from the earlier order passed by the Managing Director dated 05.09.2011, Annexure- S/1 in which Managing Director did not even accept the claim of the petitioner that he is a valid applicant for allotment of house in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board. It is submitted that aforesaid conduct of the Managing Director is nothing but blatant demonstration of his partisan attitude to help those who are in illegal occupation of house in Hanuman Nagar and to harm others who are fighting for their rightful claim for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board at Patna. 5. This Court will not go into the personal malice which has been attributed to the Managing Director but would like to observe that Managing Director being a responsible officer before passing the order dated 05.09.2011 and the subsequent order dated 02.02.2012 should have verified the records of the Board maintained in connection with the allotment of houses in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board. It appears that without verifying the records with regard to allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Colony of the Board he proceeded to pass earlier order dated 05.09.2011 holding that petitioner was not a valid applicant for allotment of house in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board. Later when he was confronted with other documents including the notes of the Manager Estate dated 25.08.1981 and of the Secretary dated 04.10.2007, Annexure-5, 6 to the Interlocutory Application No. 342 of 2011, whereafter, he changed his stance and accepted the fact that petitioner was a valid applicant for allotment of house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board but his seriatim is at 900, much beyond those who were allotted house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board which is also wholly false in view of entries in list Annexure-16 discussed above. In the circumstances, subsequent order also suffers from the vice of incorrectness bordering on falsity as thereunder Managing Director had stated that none who were allotted house in the Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony were applicant later than the petitioner which fact is also found incorrect in view of the list furnished by the petitioner, Annexure-16 which contains the names of at least six allottees who have been allotted house in Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony of the Board although they deposited their earnest money after the petitioner. 6. In view of my findings above, I have no option but to set aside both the orders passed by the Managing Director dated 05.09.2011, Annexure-S/1 and 02.02.2012, Annexure-R/1 to the review petition with direction to the Managing Director to allot one of the five houses which is even now available in Hanuman Nagar albeit in illegal occupation as is evident from letter no. 174 dated 04.02.2010, Annexure-18 to the petitioner as others who have deposited earnest money much after the petitioner have already been allotted such house in Hanuman Nagar. Necessary compliance of this order be made by the Managing Director of the Board, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Managing Director. Copy of this order be also forwarded to the State Government for taking appropriate action against the Managing Director. 7. Both the applications stand disposed of.