Premjeet Singh Sidhu vs Jharkhand State Housing Board And Others

R.K. Merathia, J

These writ petitions have been filed, challenging the orders dated 22-2-2010 passed by the Managing Director of the State Housing Board (Board

for short). As they involved common questions, they were heard together and are being disposed or by this common order.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that after complying with due formalities, petitioners were allotted the premises in question by the Board and

therefore, the impugned order, cancelling the allotment, could not have been passed; especially when petitioners were not at fault.

On the other hand, Mrs. Choudhary, appearing for the Board, supported the impugned orders. She submitted as follows. The petitioners filed writ

petitions being W.P.C. Nos. 3184 of 2007 (Premjit Singh Siddhu); 3134 of 2007 (Wazid Hussain Khan); 3133 of 2007 (Tanveer Hussain), which were

disposed of together by order dated 16-6-2008, from which it would appear that as the petitioners raised ground of discrimination, the matter was

remanded.

Pursuant thereto such ground was considered and it was found that there has been no discrimination and that all the allotments, made by the then

Executive Engineer, namely, Arjun Prasad, has been cancelled, as he made allotments illegally and without following the procedure of law, and he had

no power to make such allotment.

The petitioners suppressed the fact that they filed suit for declaration that the agreements executed by Arjun Prasad is legal and valid, but the

plaints of the said suits were rejected on 25-2-2002 in terms of Order VII, Rule 11A C.P.C., especially in view of order dated 16-6-2008, passed by

this Court; and that no appeal has been filed against such dismissal of suits by the petitioners.

Referring to the applications made by petitioners dated 14-8-2006 (Annexure-F), she pointed out that apparently the applications were not made in

terms of the advertisement. For example, a draft of Rs. 500/- was to be deposited along with supporting documents.

Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners were innocent. It was further pointed out that the quarters, in question, allotted to the petitioners, were

earmarked for Scheduled Tribes, whereas none of the petitioners are Scheduled Tribes; and that such allotments were made immediately on

application.

Thus, it appears that petitioners could not establish the ground raised by them with regard to discrimination. Moreover, it has come on the record

that, the then Executive Engineer, namely, Arjun Prasad, who had no power, made allotment of premises of Housing Board to several persons

including the petitioners illegally and without following the procedure in that regard.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed above, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned orders.

However, if the petitioners request for return of their amount, the Board will return the same, as early as possible and preferably, within four

weeks from the date of such request.

With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, no costs.

Order accordingly.