Bhupinder Nagpal vs Chandigarh Housing Board

R.L. Anand, J.—Bhupinder Nagpal, Senior Sub Editor, Jansatta, Chandigarh has filed the present petition against the Chandigarh Housing

Board under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of

certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.5.1997 issued by the respondent by which the allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been

cancelled and the entire amount has been forfeited. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:

The respondent-Board floated a house scheme for 504 MIG Flats for general public, Government employees and accredited journalists in

Sector 61, Chandigarh in the year 1995. As per Sub Scheme ''C of the said scheme the accredited journalists who were in occupation of the

accommodation allotted by the Chandigarh Administration. As per Sub Scheme ''C'' of the said Scheme 12 units were ear-marked for accredited

journalists in occupation of government accommodation allotted by the Chandigarh Administration and who intend to vacate the same. The

petitioner also applied for the allotment of the house under the Sub Scheme ''C'' as according to the petitioner he was working as a Senior Sub

Editor in the Jansatta Newspaper and was having government accommodation as he wanted to vacate the same. The petitioner was in occupation

of House No. 1333, i.e. the Government accommodation situated in Sector 24, Chandigarh. A Public Interest Litigation came up for hearing

before the High Court and it was observed by the Hon''ble Full Bench that allotment of the Government accommodation to the Journalists who are

working in the press is illegal. The matter went before the Hon''ble Supreme Court which set aside the order of the Full Bench of the High Court

and gave directions to the Board to formulate a policy. In the meanwhile the Board started the proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner and as

a result of that petitioner had to vacate the premises in the month of September, 1997. The petitioner was in possession of a government

accommodation when the scheme was floated in the year 1995 and he wanted to vacate the same. As against 12 units 30 persons applied in the

category of journalists and total four persons including the petitioner were found eligible and the names of the remaining persons were put in the

general category. The case set up by the petitioner is that since he is fulfilling the requisite qualifications required for Sub-Scheme ''C'', therefore,

the allotment which was made to the petitioner could not be cancelled by the respondent authorities. It is also the case of the petitioner that at one

point of time there was no objection from the side of the respondent that the petitioner is not a accredited journalist rather the objection of the

respondent authority was as follows:-

Documents furnished in support of your stay at Chandigarh do not cover the entire period of three years from 1992 to 1995.

Petitioner alleges that he had developed some differences with his employer and the employer had persuaded the respondent authority to deprive

him of the flat as a result of which notice dated 21.3.1997 was issued.

The petitioner filed the reply to the notice but the impugned order dated 9.5.1997 has been passed without any jurisdiction. Even otherwise

respondent Board is not competent to forfeit the entire amount which was deposited by the petitioner.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent authority which filed the reply and denied the allegations. The main defence which has

been taken up by the Board is that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria as he has not having a government accommodation for a

continuous period of three years starting from 1992 to 1995 and secondly the petitioner was not a accredited journalist.

I have heard Shri Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Deepak Suri learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents and with their assistance I have gone through the records of the case.

Annexure P-7 is the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner and para Nos.5 and 6 of the notice is relevant which I would like to

re-produce as follows:-

And whereas it is now revealed that you were never granted accredition by the Information and Public Relations Department for Daily Jansatta,

Chandigarh, but you were working on the Desk with the said Newspaper and were issued free Travel Facility Pass Book by the Information and

Public Relations Department, Chandigarh.

And whereas it is also observed that you were not residing in the accommodation allotted by the Chandigarh Administration on the date of

submission of the application form, as the date of extension of the allotment of Officers Apartment No. 1333 (Half), Sector 24, Chandigarh had

already expired on 31.8.1994 as per Secretary, House Allotment Committee, U.T. Chandigarh Endst No.A1/94/ 7057 dated 30.5.1994.

The point which now survives for determination is whether the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria or not. So far as the second defence

taken up by the respondent is concerned, in my opinion is without any force. It is proved on the record that the petitioner was residing in the

government accommodation No. 1333 (Half) Sector 24 and he started occupying this Government Accommodation since, 1992. He was in

possession of the house on the date when he filed the application before the Board for the allotment of the house. With regard to the first objection

taken up by the respondent that petitioner was not accredited journalist, I find that there is merit in the stand taken up by the respondent authority.

Counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court with the assistance of three travel pass book which were given to the petitioner and

according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this facility is granted to the accredited correspondents and in these circumstances it should be

taken as a proof that petitioner also fulfilled the eligibility criteria. I am not in a position to believe the contention raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioner in view of the certificate which have been issued by the different governments. The first certificate is Annexure R-3. This certificate

has been issued by the Director, Public Relations, Chandigarh Administration in the name of Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh

and the relevant quotation can be given as follows:

In this connection, it is intimated that Shri Bhupinder Nagpal, Jansatta, has never been accredited with the Chandigarh Administration.

The second certificate is Annexure R-6/A issued by the Director, Public Relations Department, Haryana. This certificate is more clear and

explains even the position of the petitioner. According to this certificate Shri Bhupinder Singh Nagpal was never granted press accreditation by the

Haryana Government nor has ever applied for accreditation. The pass book facility given to press accredited correspondents for free travelling in

Haryana Roadways buses, was also given to Chandigarh based desk journalists, sub-editors etc. till 1995-96 for free traveling in Haryana

Roadways buses upto the limit of 2500 kms. But after that government has withdrawn this facility. But the pass book can not be taken as a proof

of press accreditation. This pass book was meant for the sole purpose of free bus travelling in Haryana Roadways Buses.

Yet another certificate was issued by the Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Punjab, Chandigarh which is Annexure R-7.

This certificate was issued on 27.1.1998 in the name of Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh. According to this certificate the

information is as follows:-

Shri Bhupinder Nagpal was not a accredited journalist with any Newspaper in the year 1995.

The pass book is issued only for facility of free bus travelling and for no other purpose.

Facility of free bus travelling is allowed to accredited journalists and sub-editors of newspapers.

The issue of pass book for free bus travelling is not taken as a certificate of accreditation.

Thus the reading of three certificates would show that these certificates can only be used by the petitioner for a limited purpose i.e. to travel in

the buses free of costs, and for all intends and purposes he was not an accredited journalist of Jan Satta and as such he was not entitled to apply

for the flat. Now I will like to deal with the first letter which was issued by the Board dated 1.12.1995 vide which the only information which was

sought from the petitioner was:

Documents furnished in support of your stay at Chandigarh do not cover the entire period of three years from 1992 to 1995."" It is the only

objection, and if the government or the department further scrutinises the application of the petitioner/applicant and further comes to the conclusion

that the petitioner is debarred to fulfil the eligibility criteria, which is no estopple against the department. It is an estopple against the law. The

principles of natural justice in this case has been complied with. Before the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled, he was heard. Show cause

notice was given. He replied to the notice and after taking into consideration his reply, the allotment was cancelled and in the opinion of this Court

it was rightly cancelled. In this view of the matter, the first relief which has been claimed by the petitioner for the allotment of the house can not be

granted.

Learned counsel Shri Ravinder Chopra then submitted in the alternative that the respondent can not retain the amount which was given by the

petitioner alongwith the allotment application and the deposit of the subsequent instalments can not be forfeited by the department and this action is

totally illegal.

On the contrary Mr. Suri submitted that under Clause-II of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the department had the right to

forfeit this amount. I am not in a position to subscribe the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent. The clause is a penalty, which is

unreasonable. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, and direction

are given to the department to refund the amount of the petitioner within two months from today failing which the petitioner will be entitled to

interest at the rate of 6% on the amount from the date of passing of this order till payment. The petition is partly allowed.