Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1549 (JHR)

Rizwan Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-10

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In all the writ petitions decision of the State of Jharkhand dated 21.3.2015 and the decision of the Jharkhand State Housing Board in its 40th Meeting held on 7.4.2015 have been impugned by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in all the writ petitions, a common question of law is involved. The main challenge of the petitioners is to the decision taken by the State Government which was communicated to the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board vide letter dated 21.3.2015. The learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that W.P. (C) No. 1346 of 2015 may be taken up as the lead case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1346 of 2015 leading the argument submits that the impugned order dated 21.3.2015 suffers from serious infirmity in law besides, it discloses serious errors of record, it is submitted that the lottery conducted pursuant to advertisement published on 29.6.2011 was captured in the video and, the Housing Board has asserted that the procedure as laid down under the Regulations were duly followed. On complaints received the Government, a 4-Man Enquiry Committee was constituted which submitted reports holding that no irregularity was found in the allotments. It is further submitted that the Managing Director Jharkhand State Housing Board also sent reports confirming that the allotments were made strictly in terms of the Housing Board Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The learned senior counsel alleging mala fide on the part of the private respondents challenges the Government decision dated 21.3.2015, actuated with malice in law. It is contended that the right of the allottees which has concertised in law, has been taken away by the State Government on a spacious plea that serious irregularities have been found in a subsequent enquiry. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General controverts and allegations of mala Jide and submits that the decision dated 21.3.2015 has been taken by the State Government to instill confidence of the general public in the rule of law. Justifying the impugned order dated 21.3.2015, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present writ petitions involve serious disputed questions of fact and on that ground alone, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Justifying the impugned order dated 21.3.2015, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present writ petitions involve serious disputed questions of fact and on that ground alone, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board submits that in view of Section 23 read with Section 109 of the, Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, the Housing Board is bound to implement the directions issued by the State Government. The Board's decision dated 7.4.2015 is only a reiteration of the Government’s decision dated 21.3.2015. It is submitted that the petitioners have no vested legal right to claim allotment of house/flat/plot. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. From the materials produced in the present proceeding it is apparent that the impugned order dated 21.3.2015 has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners. The order contained in the impugned letter dated 21.3.2015 mentions certain discrepancies conducted in the process undertaken by the Housing Board and the allotment of house/flat/plot. It is not in dispute that previously also a 4-Man Enquiry Committee was constituted which enquired into the matter and previous Managing Director of the Housing Board has written letters to the State Government. The findings recorded in the enquiry allegedly conducted subsequently, have not been made known to the petitioners. It is also a matter of record that a copy of the said enquiry report has not been served upon the petitioners. The petitioners claim to have obtained copies of file nothings and the enquiry report of the 4-Man Committee. On the basis of these documents it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that no irregularity was found in the conduct of lottery and allotment of house/flats/plots. The order contained in the impugned letter dated 21.3.2015 has visited the petitioners with serious civil consequences. Many of the petitioners have pleaded that they obtained loan from the Bank for repaying instalments to the Housing Board. In many cases Hire-Purchase agreements have been executed and possession of the house/flats/plots have been delivered to the petitioners. The order contained in the impugned letter dated 21.3.2015 has visited the petitioners with serious civil consequences. Many of the petitioners have pleaded that they obtained loan from the Bank for repaying instalments to the Housing Board. In many cases Hire-Purchase agreements have been executed and possession of the house/flats/plots have been delivered to the petitioners. In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 , expanding the scope of the rules of natural justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The expression “civil consequences” covers infraction of property and personal rights besides, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. The principles of natural justice are thus, rules which have been read by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, nonjudicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wands worth Board of Works, (1863) 143 ER 414, the principle was thus stated ; “Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence". Since then the principles of natural justice have been chiseled, honed and refined, enriching its content. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, 2004 (2) JCR 16 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed; “the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue.” The petitioners have brought abundance of materials on record to challenge the decision of the Government, on merits. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that had an opportunity been given to them, they could have demonstrated before the authority that even if some minor infraction of rules/regulations have been detected, that would not affect the legality of the allotments made in their favour. 8. In the W.P. (C) No. 1346 of 2015, the petitioners have specifically asserted in paragraph Nos. 8. In the W.P. (C) No. 1346 of 2015, the petitioners have specifically asserted in paragraph Nos. 41 and 59 that the impugned order dated 21.3.2015 has been issued in violation of rules of natural justice and the assertion by the petitioners has not been denied by the respondent-State of Jharkhand in its counter affidavit. No material has been brought on record to indicate that a notice was issued to the petitioners and copy of the enquiry report was supplied to them, before the impugned decision was taken by the Government to cancel the allotments rather, it is an admitted position that no notice was issued to the petitioners or any of the writ petitioners. In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus : “8. The cardinal point that has to be borne on mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely, the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person.” 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, without going into the merits of the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the impugned order contained in letter dated 21.3.2015 requires interference on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, it is quashed. The original record of the 40th Meeting of the Housing Board held on 7.4.2015 has been produced and I have perused the same. I find that the agenda in respect to the cancellation of allotments made pursuant to advertisement dated 29.6.2011 merely reproduces the contents of letter dated 21.6.2011 merely reproduces the contents of letter dated 21.3.2015. Consequently, the decision of the respondent-Housing Board in its 40th Meeting held on 7.4.2015 cancelling the allotments in favour of the petitioners and others, is also quashed. 10. All the writ petitions stand allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 11. I.A. No. 6729 of 2015 (in W.P.(C) 1346 of 2015), I.A. Nos. Consequently, the decision of the respondent-Housing Board in its 40th Meeting held on 7.4.2015 cancelling the allotments in favour of the petitioners and others, is also quashed. 10. All the writ petitions stand allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 11. I.A. No. 6729 of 2015 (in W.P.(C) 1346 of 2015), I.A. Nos. 3775 & 6782 of 2015 [both in W.P. (C) No. 2478 of 2015] and I.A. No. 4410 of 2015 [in W.P. (C) No. 2448 of 2015] stand disposed of. Petitions allowed.