Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1202 (JHR)

Abinash Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-25

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondents-Board to execute the registered Deed of Leasehold for Plot No. HX-72 situated at Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi admeasuring 2109 sq.ft, which, according to the petitioner, has already been allotted in his favour and for which Hire Purchase Agreement has already been executed. 2. The factual background of the case is that the valid allotment order for the Plot in question has been cancelled by a decision taken by the State Government on 21.03.2015 and the decision of the Jharkhand State Housing Board in its 40th meeting held on 07.04.2015. The aforesaid decisions were subject matter in a series of writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 1346 of 2015 & others [one of them filed by the petitioner being W.P. (C) No. 2824/2015] wherein the petitioners had taken the ground that the order cancelling the allotment has been passed behind their back. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing of the writ petitions vide order dated 10.12.2015, quashed the impugned order of cancellation on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner thereafter made a detailed representation for getting the plot registered in his favour, but there being no action, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Housing board has not disputed the factual aspect of the matter, however, he submits that this Court has quashed the order of cancellation of allotment mainly on a technical ground of breach of principles of natural justice and any order passed on technical ground would not entitle any party to take its undue advantage. Keeping these facts into consideration, a decision has been taken by the Housing Board to issue show-cause notices to the respective allottess, so that a decision in accordance with law should be taken after providing opportunity of hearing to them. He further submits that as yet show-cause notices have not been issued, but the same would be issued without any further delay. 5. In respect thereto, Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though he is not in a position to dispute the position of law at this moment, but the authorities cannot be allowed to sit tight over the matter for years together. 6. 5. In respect thereto, Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though he is not in a position to dispute the position of law at this moment, but the authorities cannot be allowed to sit tight over the matter for years together. 6. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board has further submitted that the plot in question has been settled in favour of the petitioner which was subject matter of the litigation in another writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the writ petition filed by the petitioner, other writ petitions have also been filed as would be evident from Annexure 10 and the writ petitions have been disposed of by allowing the same on the ground that before exercising the powers as conferred under the Rules and Regulation governing the field, principles of natural justice have not been followed. 7. Thus, it is evident that this Court has passed an order not going into legality and propriety of the case by appreciating the facts, rather impugned order has been quashed on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, what has been contended by the learned counsel for the Housing Board cannot be disputed by this Court so far as it relates to position of law to the effect that on technicalities no benefit is allowed to be enjoyed, but, simultaneously, non-observance of principles of natural justice is required to be followed, otherwise the order would be said to be not in accordance with law. 8. As submitted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Board, that the decision with respect to issuance of show-cause notice has been taken by the competent authority of the Board, at the moment, this Court is not interfering with the relief sought for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, but the authorities are also not allowed to keep the matter pending for years together. 9. Therefore, the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Housing Board is directed to issue show cause to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same has not already been issued. 10. 9. Therefore, the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Housing Board is directed to issue show cause to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same has not already been issued. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner will furnish his reply within four weeks from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice and the concerned authority will take a fresh decision in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such reply by the petitioner. 11. It goes without saying the respondents-authorities will pass a fresh speaking order specifically reflecting the reasons either in case of any adverse decision or positive one. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of.