AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. - The petitioners have called into question the two identical orders, both dated 25-7-2015 (Annexures-A and A1) cancelling the provisional allotment of houses.
Sri Vikas, learned Counsel appearing for Sri B.S. Sachin for the petitioners submits that the allotment made to the petitioners on first come first served basis has actually enriched the revenue of the respondent No. 2. No loss is caused to the exchequer. The houses allotted had remained unclaimed.
The learned Counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 has passed the resolution for making the allotment on first come first served basis. The said resolution was first stayed by the first respondent-Government and later vacated, which itself is indicative of the tenability of the resolution.
Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits that the impugned orders at Annexures-A and A1 are consequential to the Government''s decision contained in its letter dated 13-7-2015 (Annexure-B). He submits that on noticing the irregularities in the allotment, the impugned decision came to be taken.
Sri H.M. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, on being asked as to whether the petitioners have responded to any notification calling for applications for allotment, he submits that the allotments came to be made based only on the resolution of the Karnataka Housing Board.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court''s decision in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1, is of imminence guidance for disposing of these petitions. The Apex Court has this to say in para 96 of its decision:
"96. In our view, a duty publicised auction conducted fairly and impartially is perhaps the best method for discharging this burden and the methods like first-come-first-served when used for alienation of natural resources/public property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only interested in garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for the constitutional ethos and values. In other words, while transferring or alienating the natural resources, the State is duty-bound to adopt the method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the process."
Admittedly 238 allotments including the two allotments to the petitioners came to be made without calling for the applications for allotment. The requirements of public law were not at all observed. Respondent No. 2 has made 238 allotments without ever issuing the notification. The allotment of sites or houses cannot be made without issuing the notification calling for applications. If there are more number of applicants than the number of sites/houses, then the selection of the applicants has got to be either on the basis of their seniority or by the drawal of lots. Regulation 9 of the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983 earmarks certain percentage of houses for certain categories. In the instant case, even the prescribed reservation requirement is not complied with. I am therefore constrained to dismiss these petitions.
I would have considered quashing the impugned order and remanding the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration as the impugned order of cancellation is passed without observing the principles of natural justice. But the remanding of the matter serves no purpose. It is a foregone conclusion that the allotment of house-sites cannot be saved, as they arc made without calling for the applications and without following the procedure prescribed by law. As held by the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others, AIR 1981 SC 136 : (1980) 4 SCC 379, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of the principles of natural justice, not because it approves of the non-observance of the principles of natural justice, but because the Court does not issue futile writs.
As held by the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Limited v. Commissioner, Kumanon Division, Nainital, Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2004 SC 2186 : (2004) 4 SCC 281 : 2004 AIR SCW 1960, rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing the mere ritual of hearing without the possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits.
In the case of Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and another v. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 : (1977) 2 SCC 256 : 1977 SCC (L and S) 226, the Apex Court has expressed the considered view that unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating.
No order as to costs.