Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2203 (RAJ)

Ayaz Educational Society v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-04

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by an educational society assailing the legality and validity of the orders dated 9.7.2020 and 23.9.2020 passed by the respondents no.2 and 3 respectively cancelling the allotment of the subject plot made in its favour with a further prayer to restore its possession and approve the building plan. 2. The facts in brief as revealed from the memo of writ petition are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and was allotted the plot no.S-2, Sector-A, Shri Rama Krishnapuram Scheme, Kota admeasuring 3000 sq. meters for institutional purpose by the respondent no.3, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (for short-'UIT') vide allotment letter dated 25.11.2002 under the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Lands) Rules, 1974 (for brevity-'the Rules of 1974'). The allotment was made at a premium amount of Rs.1000 per sq. meters. The allotment came to be cancelled by the UIT vide its order dated 27.12.2004 on account of the petitioner's failure to pay the premium amount. On a request by the petitioner to re-consider the decision of cancellation, the State Government, vide its letter dated 29.6.2012, restored allotment of 2000 sq. mtrs instead of 3000 sq. mtrs initially allotted at the same rate along with penalty and interest. Upon payment of the due amount, a lease deed dated 15.7.2013 was executed in petitioner's favour and was registered on 17.7.2013. In pursuance of the letter dated 27.9.2013 issued by the UIT, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner. It is stated that when the petitioner-society started constructing boundary wall, obstruction was raised by the local residents, a part of the boundary wall was demolished and the respondent no.3, UIT was requested by the local residents and political leaders to cancel the allotment made in its favour. It is submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner could not start construction work. However, it submitted an application dated 9.4.2018 along with copies of the building plan in prescribed proforma to the respondent no.3 seeking approval and permission to raise construction. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the UIT extended the period for raising construction levying a penalty of Rs.2,75,596/- under the Rules of 1974 which was duly deposited by the petitioner on 29.6.2018. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the UIT extended the period for raising construction levying a penalty of Rs.2,75,596/- under the Rules of 1974 which was duly deposited by the petitioner on 29.6.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner vide its letter dated 27.8.2018 requested for modification in the building plan qua setback area in view of advent of Unified Building Bye-laws, 2017 (for short-'Bye-laws, 2017') which was rejected by the UIT vide its letter dated 10.1.2019. When, for long, no action was taken by the respondent no.3 on petitioner's application for approval of the building plan, it requested the respondent no.3 vide its letters dated 5.9.2019, 24.9.2019 and 7.10.2019 to approve the same. The petitioner was directed by the UIT vide its letter dated 3.10.2019 to submit the building plan in accordance with the construction status at the plot for, as per the Junior Engineer's report, the construction has already started. The petitioner in response thereof, submitted the building plan as per the site position vide its letter dated 21.10.2019 with a request to approve the same. However, it received a show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 on 12.9.2020 dispatched by the respondent no.3 on 9.9.2020 wherein, four allegations were imputed against it. The petitioner submitted its reply on 14.9.2020. On receipt of a copy of a caveat application from the learned counsel for respondent no.3 on 3.10.2020, the petitioner came to know of the two orders dated 23.9.2020 passed by the UIT, Kota and dated 9.7.2020 passed by the State Government and when the petitioner visited the office of the respondent no.3 on 5.10.2020, it was handed over copies of the orders dated 23.9.2020 and 9.7.2020. It is submitted that the order dated 9.7.2020, whereby, the State Government has cancelled the allotment of the subject plot, has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is averred that the order dated 23.9.2020 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as except mentioning that reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, no reason has been assigned for cancelling the allotment. Hence, prayer is made as stated hereinabove. 3. The respondent no.1, in its reply, raised objection as to locus of the petitioner to file the writ petition. Hence, prayer is made as stated hereinabove. 3. The respondent no.1, in its reply, raised objection as to locus of the petitioner to file the writ petition. It is stated that all the correspondence on behalf of the petitioner-society was done by its Secretary, Shri Riyaz Ahmed whereas, the writ petition has been filed by one Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain claiming to be Secretary of the Society without any information as to when he was elected so. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands as the society was formed from the persons belonging to the muslim community whereas, induction of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain in the society overnight casts serious doubts as to nature of the induction. It is averred that change in the management of the society has been intentional and deliberate with ulterior motive to grab the valuable land which is in the nature of benami transaction. It is stated that before taking the decision to cancel the allotment vide order dated 23.9.2020, the petitioner was served upon with a show cause notice dated 24.8.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner did not utilise the plot for the purpose it was allotted and was also guilty of raising construction without prior approval. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner-society was pointed out the defects and deficiencies in the building plan submitted by it; but, without meeting the same and without getting the building plan approved, it started construction which was in breach of terms and conditions of allotment. It is further stated that the order dated 9.7.2020 was passed by it on the basis of factual report dated 26.6.2020 furnished by the UIT. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. In its reply, the respondent no.3 has broadly reiterated the averments made by the respondent no.1 in its reply. 5. In rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent no.3, the petitioner submitted that due to interference of the local residents as also of the political leaders, it could not carry out construction on the plot and taking into consideration these aspects, the UIT extended time for construction levying penalty which was deposited by the petitioner. Thus, the delay, if any, stood duly condoned/regularised by the respondent no.3, the competent authority. Thus, the delay, if any, stood duly condoned/regularised by the respondent no.3, the competent authority. It is averred that vide its notice dated 21.12.2018, the petitioner has informed the respondent no.3 that since no decision was taken for last about six months on its buildings plan even after payment of penalty amount, it was commencing the construction work as per the Bye-laws, 2017 and thereafter, the construction was started which was perfectly in consonance with Rule 14 of the Bye-laws, 2017. It is stated that in response to the letter dated 4.5.2020 issued by the UIT, the petitioner has submitted the revised maps whereupon, on inspection, it was found that petitioner was carrying out construction as per the building plan submitted by it. It is submitted that UIT passed the order impugned dated 23.9.2020 on the basis of decision of the State Government dated 9.7.2020 as is apparent from the note sheet dated 14.8.2020 drawn by the respondent no.3 and the show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 was merely an eyewash. 6. In its surrejoinder, the respondent stated that petitioner- society was under an obligation to obtain prior approval/sanction from the respondent no.3 before commencing construction work. 7. It is averred that the revised building plan submitted by the petitioner making change in accordance with the Bye-laws, 2017 was rejected by the UIT. It is submitted that before invoking the deeming approval clause, the petitioner was required to serve a month's notice and deposit the requisite amount as calculated in accordance with the provisions of Building Bye-laws with the local body, which was not complied with in the present case. 8. The respondent no.3, in its surrejoinder (erroneously referred to as the rejoinder to the reply), submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is averred that all the correspondences on behalf of the petitioner society with it were made either by Shri Zamil Ahmed, its President, or by Shri Riyaz Ahmed, its Secretary; but, the instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the society by Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain claiming himself to be Secretary of the society without any proof as to when he was inducted as Member of the society or elected as its Secretary. It is stated that no resolution entitling Shri Jain for filing the writ petition has been submitted along with the memo of the writ petition. It is stated that no resolution entitling Shri Jain for filing the writ petition has been submitted along with the memo of the writ petition. Placing on record various documents showing change in the constitution of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society, it is averred that all the changes in the management have deliberately and intentionally been concealed by the petitioner with ulterior motive to grab the valuable land which is in the nature of benami transaction. It is averred that the letter dated 24.9.2020 written on behalf of the society, Shri Riwaj Ahmed has been claimed to be its Secretary. It is stated that the petitioner has served upon a notice dated 5.4.2014 under Section 98 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short-'the Act of 1959') requiring the answering respondent no.3 to pay the damages and grant permission to sell the subject land. 9. The respondent no.3 filed an additional affidavit dated 21.4.2022 raising preliminary objections as to maintainability of the writ petition reiterating broadly the same averments as submitted in its surrejoinder. Additionally, it is averred that Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain is also Secretary of Shri Vijayvargiya Shikshak Sansthan, Kota which was allotted a piece of land measuring 0.65 hectares in khasra no.1370 Village Chandrasal, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota for construction of a school building at the time when Shri Surendra Mohan was Secretary of the society; however, later on, Shri Jain entered in the Shikshak Sansthan with ulterior motive to grab the land. It is stated that Shri K.P. Jain, the father of Shri Mukesh Jain happens to be the President of the Vijayvargiya Shikshak Sansthan. 10. The respondent no.3 filed yet another additional affidavit dated 21.4.2022 with similar averments, i.e. raising question mark on the bonafide and competence of Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain to file the writ petition. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kamlalar Sharma, submitted that primarily allotment made in its favour has been cancelled for not raising construction in time and/or for raising the construction without permission. Drawing attention of this Court towards the various letters written by the local residents and the local politicians, he canvassed that right from the inception of allotment of the subject land in its favour, protest was being raised against the allotment and whenever the petitioner tried to raise construction, obstruction was raised and the construction was demolished. Drawing attention of this Court towards the various letters written by the local residents and the local politicians, he canvassed that right from the inception of allotment of the subject land in its favour, protest was being raised against the allotment and whenever the petitioner tried to raise construction, obstruction was raised and the construction was demolished. He submitted that even respondent no.3 has acknowledged this fact as is evident from its note sheet No.223/N dated 4.6.2018. Learned senior counsel submitted that on its application dated 9.4.2018 seeking permission to raise construction, the respondent no.3, taking note of the fact and circumstances in which the petitioner was prevented from raising construction, extended the period for raising construction levying a penalty of Rs.2,75,596 under the Rules of 1974, which was duly deposited by the petitioner on 29.6.2018. He submitted that when, even after submission of the building plan along with the requisite fee and despite repeated request by the petitioner society to the respondent no.3 to approve the building plan, no response was received, it started raising construction, after serving the respondent no.3 with a notice, strictly in accordance with Bye-laws, 2017 and the building plan submitted which was permissible in view of provisions of Regulation 14(1)(i) of the Bye- laws, 2017. Learned senior counsel submitted that the construction being raised by it was in conformity with the building plan after leaving the requisite setback and this fact was even acknowledged by the respondent no.3-UIT as is apparent from its note sheet dated 4.6.2020. Shri Sharma submitted that it received a show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 wherein, breach of the terms and conditions of allotment qua four points was alleged, which was duly replied by the society vide its letter dated 14.9.2020. He submitted that with regard to non-completion of construction within three years, it was replied that after taking possession of the plot, whenever the petitioner tried to raise construction of the boundary wall, the local residents caused obstruction and in absence of requisite assistance from the UIT and the police personnel, construction could not be raised. Qua allegation that construction was started without approval of the building plan, it was submitted that when permission to raise construction was not issued despite repeated requests, it started construction in accordance with the Bye-laws, 2017 after serving the UIT a notice as permissible under the Bye-laws, 2017. Qua allegation that construction was started without approval of the building plan, it was submitted that when permission to raise construction was not issued despite repeated requests, it started construction in accordance with the Bye-laws, 2017 after serving the UIT a notice as permissible under the Bye-laws, 2017. Allegation of not putting the subject plot to use for educational purpose for seven years after its allotment was refuted stating that the construction was going on and property would be put to use for educational purpose after completion of the construction. Allegation of selling subject plot to any other institution, was denied. Learned senior counsel submitted that without taking into consideration the reply submitted by it, the respondent no.3 vide its letter dated 23.9.2020 cancelled the allotment. He submitted that the petitioner was never apprised of the order dated 23.9.2020 and on receipt of a caveat application filed on behalf of respondent no.3 before this Court, it came to know of not only the order dated 23.9.2020 but also of the order dated 9.7.2020 passed by the State Government cancelling the allotment. Shri Sharma submitted that the allotment in favour of the petitioner society was cancelled by the State Government vide its order dated 9.7.2020 without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing and the order of the UIT dated 23.9.2020 passed in pursuance thereof, also fails to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. Drawing attention of this Court towards the note sheet no.359 dated 14.8.2020, Shri Sharma submitted that the UIT has already cancelled the allotment in its favour even before issuance of show cause notice dated 24.8.2020. Qua competence of Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain to file the writ petition or correspondences with the UIT for allotment and approval of building plan for construction by Shri Riyaz Ahmed, learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is a registered society and whosoever is its Secretary at the relevant time, deals with its affairs and is competent to act on its behalf. He submitted that merely change in the constitution of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society in accordance with law can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed as transfer of the title of the subject land in favour of any third agency/society or benami transaction. He submitted that merely change in the constitution of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society in accordance with law can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed as transfer of the title of the subject land in favour of any third agency/society or benami transaction. He submitted that may be that in one or more correspondences, Shri Riyaz Ahmed came to be referred as Secretary of the society by inadvertence although, by that time, he ceased to be so, learned senior counsel contended that in any case, he was a member of the Managing Committee and was authorised vide specific resolution of the society dated 4.6.2017 to deal with the issue of approval of the building plan for raising construction of the school building. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 9.7.2020 passed by the State Government and the order dated 23.9.2020 passed by the UIT, Kota cancelling the allotment be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to complete the construction/operate school on the building already constructed on the subject plot. 12. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Anil Mehta, submitted that the order of the State Government dated 9.7.2020 did not amount to cancellation of the plot; but, initiation of the proceedings for cancellation and the subject allotment has been cancelled by the UIT vide its order dated 23.9.2020 after complying with the principles of natural justice and hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the allotment of the plot in its favour has been cancelled without issuing any show cause notice or without affording an opportunity of hearing. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and Ors. v. Punjab Infraproject Ltd.- (2022) 4 SCC 393 . 13. Shri Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-UIT, Kota, submitted that the allotment of the subject land made in favour of the petitioner-society has rightly been cancelled inasmuch as it was found guilty of breach of terms and conditions of allotment on as many as four counts. He contended that admittedly, the petitioner has started construction without due approval of the building plan. He contended that admittedly, the petitioner has started construction without due approval of the building plan. Shri Choudhary submitted that in absence of construction, the plot could not be put to use for seven years for the purpose i.e., school for which it was allotted. With regard to change of ownership, learned counsel submitted that there has been benami transaction in the garb of change of Managing Committee of the Society clandestinely. 14. Elaborating his submission, Shri Choudhary, drawing attention of this Court towards the condition no.3 of the registered lease deed dated 17.7.2013, submitted that the petitioner was required to complete construction of the school building on the subject plot within a period of three years; but, it failed to do so for about more than seven years despite notice. Referring to the various documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Assistant Registrar Societies, Kota, learned counsel submitted that Shri Riyaz Ahmed was Secretary of the petitioner- society and Shri Zamil, was its President who have been dealing with the allotment of the land and approval of the building plan from the very inception i.e., year 2002 and surreptitiously, without any intimation to the UIT, changing the constitution of the Managing Committee, Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain was elected as Secretary. He submitted that Shri Jain also happens to be Secretary in the Managing Committee of Shri Vijayvargiya Shikshak Sansthan, Kota in whose favour a piece of land was allotted way back in the year 2002 for construction of an educational institution when its Secretary was someone else. He stated that Shri K.P. Jain, the father of Shri Mukesh Jain happens to be President of Shri Vijayvargiya Shikshak Sansthan. Learned counsel submitted that this whole exercise has been done by the petitioner to give a legal colour to the benami transaction and, as a matter of fact, there has been transfer of the ownership by the allottee of the subject plot in favour of third person. 15. Shri Choudhary further canvassed that in any case, from the indemnity bond and affidavit (Annexure-R-3/3) submitted by Shri Riyaz Ahmed, the Secretary of the society, it is apparent that instead of raising construction of a school building on the subject plot, a commercial construction or a multi-storied residential building was intended to be constructed on it. 16. 15. Shri Choudhary further canvassed that in any case, from the indemnity bond and affidavit (Annexure-R-3/3) submitted by Shri Riyaz Ahmed, the Secretary of the society, it is apparent that instead of raising construction of a school building on the subject plot, a commercial construction or a multi-storied residential building was intended to be constructed on it. 16. Referring to the letter dated 28.10.2013 and the legal notice dated 11.4.2014 issued by the petitioner-society, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has requested therein to surrender the subject plot and either to permit it to sell the same to purchase another plot from the sale proceeds or to allot equal land at other place. 17. Shri Choudhary submitted that as per the petitioner's case, it received copies of the impugned orders on 6.10.2020; but, it also filed the writ petition on the same day before this Court which demonstrated that it has approached this Court with dishonest plea. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Shri Choudhary relied upon following judgements in support of his submissions: 1. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors.- (1994) 1 SCC 1 ; 2. Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana & Ors.- AIR 1985 SC 1147 ; 3. K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.- (2008) 12 SCC 481; 4. Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- (2013) 2 SCC 398 ; 5. Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors.- (1996) 5 SCC 530 . 18. Heard. Considered. 19. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as to maintainability of the writ petition through Secretary of the petitioner-society in absence of resolution of the Managing Committee, does not merit acceptance in view of provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 under which the petitioner is registered. Section 6 provides that every society may sue or be sued in such name or in the name of Chairman or the Secretary or trustees thereof. Thus, even in absence of specific resolution, the writ petition by the society through its Secretary is maintainable. 20. The petitioner, an educational society, was allotted 3000 sq. Section 6 provides that every society may sue or be sued in such name or in the name of Chairman or the Secretary or trustees thereof. Thus, even in absence of specific resolution, the writ petition by the society through its Secretary is maintainable. 20. The petitioner, an educational society, was allotted 3000 sq. mtrs of land vide allotment letter dated 25.11.2002 at the reserve price of Rs.1,000 per sq.mtrs and on its failure to pay the same, the allotment was cancelled by the UIT vide its order dated 27.12.2004. On the petitioner's request for re-consideration, the State Government was pleased vide its order dated 29.6.2012 to restore the allotment at the same reserve price along with interest and penalty; but, of 2000 sq.mtrs instead of 3000 sq.mtrs. On payment of the due amount, the lease deed of the subject plot was registered in favour of the petitioner on 17.7.2013 and its physical possession was handed over to the petitioner on 29.7.2013. 21. From the material placed by the respective parties on record, such as, the letter of the society dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure- R/3/8), wherein, it has sought permission from the UIT either for sale of the subject land and to purchase another undisputed piece of land from the sale proceeds or to allot another undisputed plot of the same size at another place in view of obstruction caused by the local residents in raising construction of the boundary wall around the plot; note sheet no.212 dated 2.6.2014 of the UIT which takes cognizance of the complaint by the Secretary of the society with regard to law and order issue while raising construction and its request to allot another plot, the grievance of the local residents against allotment of the subject plot to the petitioner-society dated 19.2.2014, complaint of Ward Member dated 25.10.2013, complaint of the local Member of Parliament dated 12.1.2018 (Annexure-22) and note sheet of the UIT no.223 dated 4.6.2018, it appears that when, after receiving physical possession of the subject land, the petitioner society tried to raise construction of a boundary wall around it, hindrance was caused and it was not permitted to do so. In any case, condoning the delay, as is apparent from the note sheet of the UIT dated 15.6.2018, time for raising construction was extended levying penalty in view of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1974 which was duly deposited by the petitioner. From the various letters exchanged between the parties, it is also reflected that when the building plan submitted by the petitioner was not approved despite repeated requests, without waiting further, the petitioner started construction which, as per the note sheet of the UIT dated 4.6.2020, on inspection was found to be as per the building plan submitted after leaving the setback. Thereafter, the petitioner was served upon with a show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 wherein, it was alleged that there has been breach of terms and conditions of allotment qua four counts, i.e., non-completion of construction within three years, starting of construction without approval of the building plan, not putting the plot to use for educational purpose even after seven years of its allotment and sale of the plot to other institution which was allotted to it for educational purpose on concessional rate. The show cause notice was responded by the petitioner vide its letter dated 14.9.2020. However, the allotment has been cancelled by the UIT vide its letter dated 23.9.2020. The State Government has also passed an order dated 9.7.2020 cancelling the allotment for violation of the terms of the allotment approval dated 29.6.2012. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the first question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the allotment of the plot has been cancelled by the respondents following the principles of natural justice. 22. Indisputably, the State Government passed the order dated 9.7.2020 cancelling the allotment without following the cardinal principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing show cause notice and affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 23. From the tenor of the order dated 9.7.2020, it is apparent that the State Government has assumed jurisdiction to cancel the allotment although, made by the UIT, on the premise that it has accorded approval for allotment of the subject plot in favour of the petitioner-society vide its letter dated 29.6.2012. 23. From the tenor of the order dated 9.7.2020, it is apparent that the State Government has assumed jurisdiction to cancel the allotment although, made by the UIT, on the premise that it has accorded approval for allotment of the subject plot in favour of the petitioner-society vide its letter dated 29.6.2012. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the order dated 9.7.2020 was not the final order but, tentative only and the final order has been passed by the UIT on 23.9.2020 after issuing show cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, cannot be countenanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order dated 9.7.2020 unequivocally cancels the allotment and directs the UIT for its compliance. Similarly, the order dated 23.9.2020 also states that in compliance of the order of the State Government dated 9.7.2020, the allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner is cancelled. Thus, no doubt is left that the order dated 9.7.2020 was final in nature and the order dated 23.9.2020 has been passed in compliance thereof. 24. Moreover, the order impugned dated 9.7.2020 makes a reference of an UIT letter dated 26.6.2020 which, none of the parties has though placed on record; but, as per the order dated 23.9.2020, the UIT has vide its letter dated 26.6.2020 communicated to the State Government about the breach of terms and conditions of allotment by the petitioner-society on four aspects, in response whereof, the State Government has cancelled the allotment. Therefore, the cancellation of the subject plot by the State Government vide its order dated 9.7.2020 was after consideration of the subject matter of show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 with same allegations as contained in the letter dated 26.6.2020, issued by the UIT post final decision by the State Government cancelling the allotment. Although, the order dated 23.9.2020 refers the show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 and its reply by the petitioner; but, on its perusal, this Court is not satisfied that this order of cancellation is based on dissatisfaction of the UIT with the reply submitted to the show cause notice dated 24.8.2020; rather, it has been issued in compliance of the order dated 09.07.2020 passed by the State Government. Even otherwise also, the show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 appears to be a mere eyewash inasmuch as from the note sheet of the UIT dated 14.8.2020, it is apparent that a decision to cancel the allotment was already taken on that day in compliance of the State Government's order dated 9.7.2020. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in recording a finding that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-society was cancelled without following the principles of natural justice. 25. Reliance placed by learned AAG on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Odisha & Ors. (supra) is of no help to him. In that case, after considering the high level enquiry report, the State Government took a decision to initiate proceedings for blacklisting wherefor, a show cause notice was issued upon the contractor calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be blacklisted. The show cause notice was issued in terms of the provisions and the procedure in the OPWD, Code. After considering the allegations in the show cause notice and the reply submitted by the contract, thereafter, the government passed an order of blacklisting. The Hon'ble Apex court refused to accept the communication dated 10.10.2017 as the final decision of blacklisting inasmuch as therein, it was specifically mentioned that action shall be taken for blacklisting after following procedure as per the OPWD Code. The communication dated 10.10.2017 was treated to be a tentative decision/prima facie opinion on the basis of material available. However, in the present case, the State Government has already taken a final decision to cancel the allotment and the UIT, Kota has been required to comply with the same and as is apparent from the order dated 23.9.2020 passed by the UIT, Kota also, the order of cancellation of allotment has been passed in compliance of the order of the State Government. 26. Similarly, the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3-UIT are of no help to him. 27. In the case of Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the case wherein, the applicant had filed successive petitions, the Apex Court held that no litigant has a right of unlimited drought to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. 27. In the case of Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the case wherein, the applicant had filed successive petitions, the Apex Court held that no litigant has a right of unlimited drought to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Every access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. No such situation is obtaining in the present case. 28. In K.D. Sharma's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to extend relief to the appellant holding that he has deliberately suppressed the notice issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. in relation to the tender with further observation that the appellant has failed to place all the facts before the Court "clearly, candidly and frankly". In the instant case, this Court does not find that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of any material fact. Mere non-filing of the change in constitution of its Managing Committee by the petitioner-society with the UIT, Kota, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as suppression of material fact as law did not oblige it to do so. 29. In the case of Ram and Shyam Company (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the issue of alternative remedy and obligation of the government to act fairly and not to act arbitrarily. 30. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a decree obtained by fraud is nullity. 31. In Kishore Samrite (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a litigant cannot be permitted to pollute the stream of justice by suppression of material fact and approaching the court with unclean hands. This Court did not find any such situation obtaining in the present case. 32. In the aforesaid circumstances, since, in the considered opinion of this Court, the orders cancelling the allotment of the subject land have been passed without following the cardinal principles of natural justice, refraining itself from delving deep into the factual aspect(s) of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to remand the matter back to the respondents for decision afresh on the allegations levelled vide show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 after affording the petitioner-society a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 33. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 9.7.2020 and dated 23.9.2020 are quashed and set aside. 33. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 9.7.2020 and dated 23.9.2020 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondents for decision afresh on the show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The exercise may be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 34. The pending applications (1/2022 & 2/2022) stand disposed of accordingly.