Vandna Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit quashing and setting aside allotment of Accommodation i.e. Set No. 3, Block A, Type IV, New Brockhurst, Chhota Shimla made in favour of respondent No. 3, vide letter No. GAD-D(G)1-18/2013-loose-I, dated 21.2.2019 (Annexure P-5) for all intents and purposes.

(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus of other appropriate writ order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to allot Set No. 3, Block A, Type IV, New Brockhurst, Chhota Shimla to the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that she has applied prior in time to that of respondent No. 3, and has a better case for allotment of said accommodation and her status/designation is above to that of Respondent No. 3.

(iii) That the entire records of the proceedings pertaining to allotment of Set No. 3, Block A, Type IV, New Brockhurst, Chhota Shimla in favour of respondent No. 3, may be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) That the writ petition may be allowed with costs."

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are that the petitioner, who is working on the establishment of respondent No. 4, was allotted government accommodation, i.e. Set No. 9-B, Type IV, New Brockhurst, Chhota Shimla, on 12.10.2017, vide allotment order Annexure P-1. According to the petitioner, her accommodation is situated in the ground floor of the building and the same besides damp is also dark and dingy and there are other problems of seepage and drainages etc in the said accommodation. In the month of April, 2019, the petitioner came to know that Set No. 3, Block A, Type IV, New Brockhurst, Chhota Shimla, was likely to fall vacant on 31.12.2019 on account of superannuation of its occupant. Therefore, she made a request for change of accommodation in terms of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994, vide application dated 15.06.2019 (Annexure P-2). Her grievance is that the accommodation in issue stands allotted to respondent No. 3, who earlier was occupying Set No. 1, Block A, Type IV, in the same vicinity. It is further the case of the petitioner that the information which was gathered by her under the Right to Information Act demonstrates that the allotment of the accommodation in issue stood made in favour of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 1 without any due application of mind and ignoring the rightful and justified claim of the petitioner as also the fact that respondent No. 3 had submitted his application for change of accommodation almost one month after request in this regard stood made by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the non-application of mind at the behest of respondent No. 1 while ordering the accommodation in exchange to be allotted to respondent No. 3 is further evident from the fact that the document Annexure P-4 received by her under the Right to Information Act demonstrates that the allotment stood made by the officer concerned without assigning any reason by just stating therein that the same be allotted to the candidate at Serial number 1 in the Note who happened to be respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the allotment of the accommodation in issue in favour of respondent No. 3 vide Annexure P-5, dated 21.08.2019 and for further direction to the respondents-authorities to allot the accommodation in issue in her favour.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 despite service did not appear in the Court and was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. No reply etc. was filed at the behest of said respondent. The stand of respondents No. 1 and 2 is that the accommodation in issue was rightly allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 in exchange in terms of the Rules in vogue. This is the reason assigned by respondents No. 1 and 2 for allotting the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record.

It is not in dispute that a request was received both from the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 by the authority concerned for change of accommodation. It is also not in dispute that the request made by the petitioner was prior in time as compared to respondent No. 3. Yet the Note which was put before the authority concerned, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-4, demonstrates that the name of respondent No. 3 is mentioned in the said Note at Serial number 1 and the name of the petitioner is mentioned at Serial number 2 and the dates on which the persons concerned submitted their requests for change of accommodation is conspicuously not mentioned in the document. This strengthens the contention of the petitioner, as has been raised in the pleadings, that respondent No. 3 took advantage of the fact that he was serving in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a lady Officer and the defects which have been pleaded by her with regard to the accommodation which presently is in her possession have not been very seriously disputed by respondents No. 1 and 2 during the course of arguments, it would have been prudent on the part of the authority concerned to have had allotted the accommodation in issue by way of exchange in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner had made request for change of accommodation much before respondent No. 3. Further there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the mode and manner in which the accommodation in issue has been alloted in favour of respondent No. 3 is completely arbitrary because no reasoning has been mentioned as to why said respondent was being allotted the accommodation over and above the petitioner. The justification for doing so which has been culled out in the reply by respondents No. 1 and 2 cannot cure the defect which exists in Note Annexure P-4, vide which, the accommodation stood allotted in favour of respondent No. 3, because, as already mentioned above, the same sans any reason.

Accordingly, as this Court is of the view that the allotment of accommodation by way of exchange in favour of respondent No. 3 is completely arbitrary and is an act of colourable exercise of powers at the behest of respondent No. 1, this writ petition is allowed by quashing letter dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) and by also holding that the allotment of the accommodation by way of exchange in favour of respondent No. 3 as per Note Annexure P-4 is bad in law. It is further directed by way of issuance of writ of mandamus that the accommodation in issue, i.e. Set No. 3, Block A, Type IV, New Brockhurst, Chhota Shimla, be forthwith allotted in favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. No order as to costs.