JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. It was more than four decades back that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "it must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesses, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licenses etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory (Refer: Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 26). 2. The principles laid down above would equally apply to the allotment of the government residences to be made by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residencies (General Pool) Rules, 1994. 3. The instant case depicts sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of respondent-Corporation, which unfortunately despite observations made by this Court, as far as back as on2.9.2015 in Shashi Bhushan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. 2016 (1) Shim. L.C. 302 CWP No. 9492-2014 does not seem to have learnt its lessons well. 4. While deciding the said case, which pertained to selection for the posts of Transport Multipurpose Assistants (Conductors) in the respondent-Corporation, the Court adversely commented on its working and observed as under:- 27. It is more than settled that public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse and in case large scale fraud is committed so as to shock the conscious of the Court, then the law is not that powerless and would step into quash the entire selection. This was so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Yadav and another Vs. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse and in case large scale fraud is committed so as to shock the conscious of the Court, then the law is not that powerless and would step into quash the entire selection. This was so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 165 as under:- 16. Having regard to all the above, the irresistible conclusion is "fraud has reached its crescendo". Deeds as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be perpetrated. We are reminded of the words of Shakespeare: "Thus much of this, will make Black, white; foul, fair; wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you gods! why this?" (Timon of Athens, Act IV, Sc. 3) 17. It may not be too much to draw an inference that all these were motivated by extraneous considerations. Otherwise, how does one account for selection without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. They have been done with impunity. 18. The story does not end here. From out of the "selection list" secret Communications have been sent to the candidates. Selections were made without medical test or verification of antecedents. 19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least Resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless. 29. Respondent No. 2 being creation of statute is admittedly a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot therefore, act like a private individual, who can act in a manner whatsoever he likes, unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless. 29. Respondent No. 2 being creation of statute is admittedly a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot therefore, act like a private individual, who can act in a manner whatsoever he likes, unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. Rather its power as an employer are more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It is trite that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are governed by rules, regulations and instructions. It is more then settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner then the same must be done in that manner or not at all. 5. The issue in question relates to allotment of government accommodation and aggrieved by the non-allotment, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following substantive reliefs:- "a) That impugned office order dated 22.08.2020, Annexure P-3, may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to respondents No.1 & 2 to allow office order dated 14.08.2020, Annexure P-2, remain in force and allotment of Set No. 12, Block-A, Divisional Workshop, Taradevi, Shimla 171010 in favour of the petitioner in vogue, to secure the ends of law and justice; b) That respondents No. 1 & 2 may kindly be directed to post the House Allotment Rules, applications received for allotment of quarters, proceedings of the meetings of the House Allotment Committee and office orders issued consequently on the website of the respondent-Corporation so that there is transparency in making allotment of houses to the employees. c) That respondents No. 1&2 may kindly be directed to produce record pertaining to the allotment of houses in favour of employees of the respondent-Corporation posted at Shimla from January, 2014 onwards along with proceedings of the meetings of the House Allotment Committee and consequent orders as issued before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal." 6. The petitioner joined respondent-Corporation as Driver on 31.5.2007 and is working as such since then. The petitioner joined respondent-Corporation as Driver on 31.5.2007 and is working as such since then. On 5.4.2019, he was elected as President of the Himachal Path Parivahan Nigam Drivers' Union, H.P. On 14.5.2020, the petitioner applied for the allotment of government accommodation and vide order, dated 14.8.2020, Set No. 12, Block-A, situated in Divisional Workshop Taradevi, was allotted in favour of the petitioner, however the respondents thereafter issued office order, dated 22.8.2020, whereby aforesaid allotment was cancelled and the same was made in favour of respondent No.3 and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking reliefs, as quoted here-in-above. 7. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply, wherein, apart from raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, the petitioner having not approached this Court with clean hands, locus standi, it has been specifically stated that no step-motherly treatment has been meted out to the petitioner on any account and on the contrary, the respondents had given a sympathetic view and alloted the accommodation out of turn to the petitioner, despite the petitioner being at Sr. No. 11, whereas respondent No.3 being at Sr. No.1, however when objections were filed by respondent No.3, respondents No. 1 and 2 were under obligations to consider those objections and in this background, the respondent-Corporation reviewed its earlier decision and cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and alloted the same to respondent No.3. 8. In the reply, the respondents have annexed list of the applications received upto 16.7.2020 for residential accommodation in a tabulated form (Annexure R-2), which reads as under:- S. No. Name (Sh./Smt.) DESIG. PRESENT POSTED Date of receipt of application Date of existing allotment Grounds 1 Ravi Kumar Dvr. DW Tdvi 7.4.2014 Not Allotted 2 Pritam Singh Clerk HO 2.4.2015 Not Allotted 3 Ranvir Singh Condt. Unit-Ill 4.1.2017 Not Allotted 4 Kuldeep Kumar Condt. Unit-II 15.9.17 Not Allotted 5 Tilak Raj Dvr. DW Tdvi 18.9.17 Not Allotted 6 Daljeet Singh DM DO 27.12.18 Not Allotted 7 Vikram-II Dvr. DW Tdvi 17.4.19 Not Allotted 8 Ramesh Chand-II Dvr. DW Tdvi 17.5.19 Not Allotted 9 Joginder Singh Dvr. DW Tdvi 29.6.19 Not Allotted 10 Ram Krishan Dvr. Unit-1 9.7.19 Not Allotted 11 Man Singh Dvr. Local 5.8.19 Not Allotted 12 Hans Raj Sr. Asstt. HO 17.8.19 Not Allotted 13 Bhuteshwar Dvr. Local 29.8.19 Not Allotted 14 Pyare Lal Dvr. Local 22.10.19 Not Allotted 15 Tej Singh Mech. DW Tdvi 17.5.19 Not Allotted 9 Joginder Singh Dvr. DW Tdvi 29.6.19 Not Allotted 10 Ram Krishan Dvr. Unit-1 9.7.19 Not Allotted 11 Man Singh Dvr. Local 5.8.19 Not Allotted 12 Hans Raj Sr. Asstt. HO 17.8.19 Not Allotted 13 Bhuteshwar Dvr. Local 29.8.19 Not Allotted 14 Pyare Lal Dvr. Local 22.10.19 Not Allotted 15 Tej Singh Mech. DW Tdvi 13.11.19 Not Allotted 16 Desh Raj Drv. DW Tdvi 18.12.19 Not Allotted 17 Gian Singh Dvr. Unit-I 3.2.2020 Not Allotted 18 Ashok Kumar Dvr. HO 22.5.2020 Not Allotted 19 Chander Prakash Condt. DW Tdvi 4.5.2020 Not Allotted 20 Vivek Mehta Elect. Unit-I 17.6.2020 Not Allotted 21 Pawan Kumar AM (Store) DW Tdvi 20.6.2020 Not Allotted 9. In rejoinder, the petitioner, instead of concentrating on the averments made in the petition and trying to justify the allotment in his favour, contended that step-motherly treatment has been meted out to him on the ground that in case respondent No.3 had in fact made application for allotment in the year 2014, then why successively he did not object to the allotment of government accommodation in favour of Pawan Guleria, Hem Raj, Shankar Singh, Conductor, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Deputy Divisional Manager, Daljeet Singh, Divisional Manager, who had applied during the year 2014 and thereafter. 10. On 17.9.2020, the Court directed respondents-Corporation to produce records of house allotment committee along with Rules of allotment. 11. On 28.9.2020, arguments in this case were heard and the judgment was ordered to be reserved. 12. We perused the records on 28.9.2020 and found that same was not at all maintained properly much less in accordance with the provisions of Office Manual, which is the Bible of any office insofar as maintenance of the official record is concerned. 13. Accordingly, we directed the respondent-Corporation to depute the concerned official/officer, who had been maintaining record. On 29.9.2020, Vijay Kashyap, dealing hand and Pyare Lai, Section Officer, appeared and after trying their level best they failed to justify the names of the employees, as per tabulated chart, Annexure R-2 and requested for further time. Thereafter, dealing hand, alone came on 30.9.2020 and after spending few hours, was again not in a position to justify the entires shown in Annexure R-2. 14. Thereafter, dealing hand, alone came on 30.9.2020 and after spending few hours, was again not in a position to justify the entires shown in Annexure R-2. 14. It was thereafter on 1.10.2020 that dealing hand along with Section Officer again appeared and after spending about three hours sought permission to take back the record and prepare a tabulated chart. 15. It is now on 3.10.2020 that list of the employees to be considered for allotment of government residencies, in a tabulated form, has been handed over to us, duly certified by the Regional Manager (Legal) of the respondent-Corporation, which is annexed with this judgment as Annexure -I (total pages 8 in number). 16. Noticeably, the respondent-Corporation somewhere in the month of August, 2019 prepared list of the employees for allotment of residential accommodation, which reads as under:- S. No. Name of Emp. DESIG Unit D/o Apply 1 Poonam Thakur Clerk D/W Tdv. 8.10.15 2 Madan Lal Driver DM Office 2.4.18 3 Ram Chand H.M. Tara Devi Unit 29.11.18 4 Daljeet Singh DM, Hzr. Head Office 27.12.18 5 Rajesh Kumar Jr. Tech.Electt. Tdvi Unit 28.3.19 6 Vikram Singh II Driver D/ Tdvi 17.4.19 7 Ramesh Chand II Driver D/W Tdvi 17.5.19 8 Joginder Singh Driver D/W Tdvi 29.6.19 9 Ram Krishan Driver Tara Devi Unit/I 9.7.16 10 Man Singh Driver Local Unit II 5.8.19 11 Tilak Raj Driver D/W Tdvi 18.9.17/9.8.19 12 Hans Raj Sr. Asstt. Head Office 17.8.19 changed 13 Bhutashwer Dutt Driver HIN Tdv 29.8.19 14 Pyare Lal Driver Local Unit 22.10.19 15 Tej Singh Mech D/W Tdvi 13.11.19 changed 16 Raju Sweeper HO 13.9.19 17 Hem Raj Driver Taradevi Unit 23.9.19 18 Pawan Kumar DDM(T) D/W Tdv. 1.2.2020 17. Even though, this list was prepared somewhere in the month of August, 2019, but strangely enough it contains list of employees, who applied in later part of 2019 and 2020, though notings that have been continued further bear date 22.8.2019 however, these entries can best be left to guess work, but what is more shocking is that there is overwriting on these entries over and above the notings of the departmental head. 18. 18. The petitioner, despite being no where even close in the seniority list of employees, who could have been allotted government accommodation, on the sheer strength of his being President of the Himachal Path Parivahan Nigam Drivers' Union, to which he was elected on 5.4.2019, approached the respondent-Corporation by writing letter, dated 5.8.2019, which reads as under:- "The Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla Division, Shimla, H.P. Subject: Regarding allotment of Departmental residence at Taradevi. Sir, I have the honour to state that a Govt. residence has been allotted in favour of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Regional Manager (Stores), HRTC Head Office Shimla in the HRTC colony (Block-A Set No. 13) at Taradevi and said office stand retired from his services on 31.08.2019. You are therefore requested the same residence may please be allotted in my favour after vacation of said officer please. I shall be highly thankful to you. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Man Singh) Driver HRTC, Local Unit, Dhalli-Shimla." 19. This application appears to have been placed before the Vice Chairman of the respondent-Corporation, who made following endorsement:- "D.M. please do the needful. Sd/- 5.8.2019." 20. Obviously, such a course could not have been adopted even by the Vice Chairman of the respondent-Corporation and the allotment had to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules. 21. Here it shall be apposite to refer to the observations made in para 1 and 46 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India and ors. (1997) 1 SCC 444 , being a land mark judgment qua allotment of government residences on out of turn basis, which read as under:- 1. The administrative law has of late seen vast increase in discretionary powers. But then, the discretion conferred has to be exercised to advance the purpose to sub serve which the power exists. Even the Minister, if he/she be the repository of discretionary power, cannot claim that either there is no discretion in the matter or unfettered discretion. This proposition was rejected emphatically by the House of Lords in landmark decision of Pad field 1968 AC 997 . This apart, as pointed out in United States v. Wunderlish 342 US 98: Law has reached its finest moments, when it has freed man from unlimited discretion of some ruler, some...official, some bureaucrat.... Absolute discretion is a ruthless master. This proposition was rejected emphatically by the House of Lords in landmark decision of Pad field 1968 AC 997 . This apart, as pointed out in United States v. Wunderlish 342 US 98: Law has reached its finest moments, when it has freed man from unlimited discretion of some ruler, some...official, some bureaucrat.... Absolute discretion is a ruthless master. It is more destructive of freedom than any of man's other invention. 1A. These high principles of administrative law have been placed at the forefront because, as would appear from what is being stated later, in the present case there was gross misuse of discretionary power relating to allotment of accommodation to government employees. As against the discretionary quota of 10 per cent, it shot up to 70 per cent; and on top of that 8,768 houses were allotted by stating that the same was being done on "Special Compassionate Ground". This naturally led to uproar and serious objection from those who were denied accommodation as per rules. After the present petition was entertained and the Court went into the matter in depth, it was found that what had taken place was a scam, and a big scam at that. In the present case, we do not propose to say anything regarding the allegation that the allotments were made for extraneous consideration, as investigation relating to that is under progress. What we propose to examine rather is how best we can take care of illegality which had described following out-of-turn allotments a galore. 46. The arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities in a big way had led almost to the collapse of the whole system of allotment. There was a crisis like situation and this Court had to deal with an extra-ordinary situation and a special procedure had to be devised to do justice to all concerned. Natural justice being a flexible principle and we being concerned with the issue of out-of-turn allotment in thousands, it was felt by us that a collective hearing would meet the requirement of natural justice as the Committee had given individual hearing to those who appeared before it. This view was taken because the basic question to be determined was whether the allotment given to an employee was on out-of-turn basis or not. This view was taken because the basic question to be determined was whether the allotment given to an employee was on out-of-turn basis or not. In case it were to be so, it is apparent that unless an exception is made, the allottee has no right to stay, no right to occupy the premises. The hearing given by us on two occasions brought eloquently to us that the out-of-turn allot tees were notified and had appeared, had two principal contentions to advance-the same being the plea not to evict either on the ground of serious illness of one or the other close relatives, or to include them in the functional category. Nothing else could have really been pleaded not to evict them. These two aspects have been adequately borne in mind by us as would appear from the aforesaid discussion. 22. We have also found that certain D.O. notes have been issued by the other politicians, who otherwise have no concern with the respondent-Corporation and, thus, could not have been acted upon. Such a course is clearly in violation of the guidelines that have been laid down in Shiv Sagar Tiwari's case (supra). 23. It was observed by Wades Administrative Laws, 5th Edition at page 347 that "The first requirement is the recognition that all powers have legal limits, the next requirement, no less vital, is that the Court should draw this limit in a way which strikes the most suitable balance between executive efficiency and legal protection of the citizen. Parliament consistently confers upon public authorities powers which on their face seem absolute and arbitrary. But arbitrary power and unfettered discretion are what the Courts refuse to countenance. They have woven a net-work of restrictive principles which require statutory powers to be reasonable and in good faith and in accordance with the spirit and letter of the empowering Act." At page 359, it was also observed that "Discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That amounts at least to this that the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous consideration which ought not have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith, nevertheless, the decision will be set-aside." 24. That amounts at least to this that the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous consideration which ought not have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith, nevertheless, the decision will be set-aside." 24. Here, it shall be apposite to make a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Public School vs. Huda (1996) 5 SCC 510 , wherein it was observed that when public authority discharges its public duty, it has to be consistent with the public purpose and clear and unequivocal guidelines or rules are necessary and the same cannot be acted at the whim and fancy of the public authorities or under their garb or cloak for any extraneous consideration. 25. The concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with principles of natural justice. Therefore, any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12must act fairly and reasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. 26. Thus, what can be deduced from the aforesaid exposition of law is that procedure for allotment has to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious and should not suffer from favouritism or nepotism and must not be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 27. We could have conveniently disposed of the petition by dismissing the same as the petitioner has failed to substantiate his plea for allotment of government accommodation on out of turn basis, but the mode and manner, in which records so also Annexure R-2 have been prepared by the respondent-Corporation, constrains us to proceed further in the matter. 28. As observed above, while dealing with cases relating to house allotment, the respondent-Corporation has prepared a list of applicants, which has to be based and drawn on the basis of date of application and the records have to be prepared strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Office Manual, more particularly, Chapter IX thereof, which deals with filling system. As observed above, while dealing with cases relating to house allotment, the respondent-Corporation has prepared a list of applicants, which has to be based and drawn on the basis of date of application and the records have to be prepared strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Office Manual, more particularly, Chapter IX thereof, which deals with filling system. The same not only have not been maintained in terms of the aforesaid provisions, but even the list now prepared on the basis of so called record does not tally with Annexure R-2 or with the list prepared in August 2019 and thus, irresistible conclusion that may be drawn by us is that a fraud is being played with the Court when false and fabricated documents, more particularly, Annexure R-2, is being placed before the Court for being accepted as the one based on records. 29. Deeds as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be permitted to be perpetrated. Shakespeare aptly described such sordid affairs in the following manners: thus much of this, will make Black, white; foul, fair; Wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you gods: why this? This is clearly evident from the fact that both the President and Vice President of respondent No. 1 have recently resigned from the office purportedly because of a video widely circulated showing them accepting bribe from the Contractor. 30. As observed earlier, it is highly regrettable that the holders of the office of respondent-Corporation have been completely oblivious to the fact that the office entrusted to them is sacred trust and is meant for use and not for abuse. 31. The holders of the office cannot act as despots or monarchs and are obliged to act in accordance with the principles of democracy, equity, equality and solidarity and above all, in accordance with the Rules governing the field. 32. It is because of sharp and illegal practices being followed by the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner, even though had no right to have government accommodation on out of turn basis, was initially allotted accommodation and the order was subsequently superseded. Riding high on power being President of Himachal Path Parivahan Nigam Drivers' Union, the petitioner had managed to push through application and have allotment made in his favour, which act has rightly been rectified by the respondent-Corporation by cancelling the allotment. 33. Riding high on power being President of Himachal Path Parivahan Nigam Drivers' Union, the petitioner had managed to push through application and have allotment made in his favour, which act has rightly been rectified by the respondent-Corporation by cancelling the allotment. 33. The matter cannot be permitted to rest here because the manner in which the records are being prepared and thereafter submitted to this Court, not only by the respondent-Corporation, but the other departments/corporations under the State Government reveals that the records are not being maintained in accordance with the office manual and tabulated information containing data on the basis of so called record is then being submitted to the Court as being authentic, whereas many times these are fudged, fabricated and not even based on the actual record. 34. We in India inherited a hierarchical system of administration from the colonial regime. The aim of the system was to ensure that there are adequate checks and balances at every successive stage, but unfortunately, this Court invariably finds that no tings of the dealing hand are dittoed and approved that too without application of mind as it is till the highest authority. 35. If the decision making is left at hands of the dealing hand alone and approved as such without due application of mind by the higher authority, then the same would play havoc with the entire system. 36. It is here that role of Advocate comes into play. Lawyers cannot simply be mouth piece of his client and being officer of the Court has to make best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices. 37. This is so provided in Section 1 of Chapter II of Part-VI of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India lays down therein the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to the Advocates. 38. It is, thus, duty of each Advocate to check the veracity, correctness of the pleading as also every document before filing the same in the Court. 39. 38. It is, thus, duty of each Advocate to check the veracity, correctness of the pleading as also every document before filing the same in the Court. 39. As observed above, a deliberate attempt has been made by the respondent-Corporation to mislead this Court by filing and creating documents, which are not only fabricated, but not even incorrect as per the actual record, therefore, this Court left with no other option but to issue show cause notice to Vijay Kashyap, dealing hand and Pyare Lai, Section Officer, so also the deponent of the affidavit, Sh. Madan Sharma, Regional Manager (Legal), as to why they should not be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act for having deliberately and wilfully tried to mislead this Court by submitting fabricated documents to this Court. 40. At the same time, it needs to be reiterated that this is not an isolated or solitary case, where the records are not being maintained properly, therefore, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to issue necessary instructions to all the departments/corporations under the State Government to: (i) maintain office files and records strictly in accordance with the provisions of Office Manual and other instructions issued from time to time, (ii) impart training to all officials/officers regarding maintenance of official records and filing of affidavits/replies in the Courts. (iii) sufficient copies of office manual be made available to each department offline and online. 41. The petition is dismissed, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Annexure I shall form part of this judgment. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.