B. Ram vs Chandigarh Housing Board and Others

Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.—In the year 1989, Chandigarh Housing Board, (hereinafter referred to as ''the respondent-Board'') floated two different Self Financing Housing Schemes, one for the Government employees of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Administration, their Board/Corporation and Undertakings and for Defence Personnel (hereinafter referred to as ''the Government Employees'' Scheme'') and the other for General Public (hereinafter referred to as ''the General Public Scheme''). Both the schemes had four categories of residential flats, i.e., Category-I, II, III and IV. Under the Government Employees'' Scheme, there were 48 flats available and under the General Public Scheme, 336 flats were available for allotment. The allotment was done by draw of lots. The petitioner, being a defence personnel, made an application dated 03.07.1989 (Annexure R-1) for allotment of a house/flat in Category-I under the Government Employees'' Scheme as a Scheduled Caste applicant. On scrutinizing, the application was found in order and a list of eligible candidates (Annexure R-2) was displayed on the notice board. Name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 2 of that list. The respondent-Board then published a public notice in the newspaper ''The Tribune'' dated 23.10.1989 fixing different dates for draw of lots for registration and allocation of floors to the applicants of different categories of flats under the Government Employees'' Scheme. It was categorically stated in that public notice that list of eligible applicants would be displayed on the notice board in the premises of the office of the respondent-Board so as to enable the applicants to submit their objections, if any, in writing, on or before 31.10.1989. Draw of lots were scheduled to be held on 09.11.1989.

For allotment of flats in the category reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes applicants, only 18 applications were received and out of 48 flats available under the scheme, 06 flats, being 121/2% of the total flats, were reserved for such category. The petitioner presumably keeping in view his bleak chance of successful in the Government Employees'' Scheme, in view of such number of reserved flats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category, made an application dated 26.10.1989 (Annexure P-1) requesting that his name be considered under the General Public category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. However, the request was declined and petitioner''s application was included in the draw of lots under the Government Employees'' Scheme for reserved category. The petitioner, however, was not successful in the draw of lots but his name was kept at serial No. 1 of the waiting list in view of draw of lots and available flats for allotment to the reserved category. The petitioner was to be offered a flat in the event of any flat in the reserved category was surrendered or allotment of any such flat was cancelled, in future.

The petitioner by way of this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has come out with a prayer that respondent-Board be directed to allot him a flat in Category-I of the Government Employees'' Scheme at Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

Respondent No. 1 has filed a written statement admitting the factual matrix as afore-stated but denying the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a flat in Category-I of the Government Employees'' Scheme.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.

Though it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per case of the respondent-Board itself, only 18 applications were received for allotment of flats under the reserved category under the scheme meant for Government employees and only 04 applications were found to be complete, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be allotted a flat even without draw of lots, in view of the fact that 06 flats were available for allotment under the reserved category and 04 applications were found in order, but the assertion is not found to be supported by any document and record maintained by the respondent-Board. The petitioner in his wisdom has chosen not to controvert a plea put up on behalf of the respondents in the written statement to the effect that out of the 18 applications received for flats reserved for categories under the employees scheme, 06 applicants were successful and the 06 flats reserved for category were allotted to them. Whereas, the petitioner could catch the unfortunate on coming at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list as no rejoinder to the written statement has been filed by the petitioner. In that view of the situation, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that only 04 applications were found to be complete and he was entitled to allotment of flat of Category-I under the Government Employees'' Scheme even without draw of lots.

Though it is not so claimed on behalf of the petitioner during the course of argument or in the writ petition but it may be relevant to state here that the request of the petitioner for change of scheme from the Government Employees'' Scheme to that of General Public Scheme was not acceded to and rightly so because such change could not be entertained in view of the fact that the two schemes were different from each other and had different conditions of eligibility and, above this, change of category, if allowed, would have jeopardized and adversely affect the rights of applicants of general category under that scheme in view of the stipulation in Clause 5 of the scheme that in the event of adequate number of applicants for reserved category being not available, the flats were to be diverted to general category. Even otherwise, the petitioner has chosen not to challenge reversal to accept for change of the scheme.

In view of as has been stated and discussed here-in-above, the petitioner is not found entitled to any relief but keeping in view needs of justice in view of a question was put to the learned counsel for the respondent-Board and in answer to that question, it has been revealed that a 3rd floor flat of reserved category under the Government Employees'' Scheme is available and respondent-Board has no objection to allot this flat to the petitioner. Rather according to the learned counsel for respondent-Board, this flat was offered to the petitioner and he had deposited the some amount also but thereafter, the petitioner neither deposited the remaining amount for allotment of the flat nor contacted the respondent-Board. That mean so, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent-Board to offer the aforesaid flat to the petitioner in lieu of payment of balance amount of consideration along with interest as per existing rules and it shall be open to the petitioner to accept that allotment subject to payment of the balance amount of consideration and interest as aforesaid. Claim of the petitioner for allotment of a flat of Category-I, is, however, found to be untenable in view of the fact that in the draw of lots, 06 applicants of the reserved category were successful and flats were allotted to them and it is deemed inequitable to dislodge those allottees at this belated stage. The writ petition is disposed of in the afore-stated directions with no order as to costs.