AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr. A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the notification published in the newspaper dated 13.1 1.2010 insofar as the LIG stray sites in Yelahanka Layout. The petitioners have also sought for issue of mandamus to respondent No. 2 to consider and allot LIG stray sites in their favour as per the numbers indicated in the prayer column. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners No. 1 to 3 are Ex-Service men while petitioners No. 4 and 5 are the widows of the Government Employees. In that regard, they have made application to respondent No. 2-Housing Board seeking consideration for allotment of sites which are available to be allotted to the said category of persons under the quota as provided by notification dated 30.04.2002. In that regard, it is their case that out of the stray sites which are available, Regulation 9-A provides for allotment of stray sites/houses as per the categories indicated in the said notification. Thus out of the available stray sites, 30% could be allotted to the Category-B which is indicated in the said notification. The petitioners contend that petitioners No. 1 to 3 fall under B (iii) Category and petitioners No. 4 and 5 fall under B(v) category and as such, they are entitled to be considered for allotment. In such circumstance, when the said sites were also included in the notification dated 03.11.2010 for public auction, the petitioners have approached this Court since their case was directed to be considered in the earlier writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 34576-77/2004 dated 16.04.2009 but had not been considered in accordance with law.
The respondents have filed their objection statement. The fact that the sites to which the petitioners claim right for consideration are stray sites and are also within 30% reserved for Category B in the said notification is not seriously in dispute inasmuch as this aspect had arisen for consideration in the earlier writ petitions as referred to above. However, respondent No. 2 had contended that after disposal of the earlier writ petitions, respondent No. 2 had taken note of the application filed by the petitioners and in respect of the said allotment to be made, respondent No. 2 had addressed letters dated 04.07.2008 and 01.08.2009 to respondent No. 1 and since the same has not received consideration at the hands of respondent No. 1, no further action can be taken in that regard.
In order to ascertain the action taken by the first respondent, the learned Government Advocate had sought further instructions in the matter and would submit at this juncture that respondent No. 1 has already communicated to respondent No. 2 by their communication dated 17.12.2012 that the action to be taken by respondent No. 2 does not require the approval of respondent No. 1 since under the Act, respondent No. 2 themselves are authorised to deal with the sites which are to be allotted as per their Regulations.
In the light of the above, a perusal of the notification dated 30.04.2002 would indicate that out of stray sites available, 30% is to be allotted to the persons classified in B Category. Among the categories which are described under the Category-B, there are other categories including Ex-service men and the dependants of the State Government Employees. It is in that context, this Court by its earlier order dated 16.04.2009 had directed respondent No. 2 to consider the applications of the petitioners and to find out as to whether they are entitled to the sites under the said category and take action in that regard. Though it is the initial contention of respondent No. 2 that the approval of the Government was required, presently, the said position has been clarified by respondent No. 1 that it is for respondent No. 2 to take a decision in the matter. Further, from the provisions in Section 87-A of the Act, though the State Government has control over the administration of the Board, in the instant facts, the matter relates to the allotment of stray sites which is to be made by respondent No. 2 themselves keeping in view the Regulations which would bind them. Therefore, the decision to be taken is by respondent No. 2 and any direction to respondent No. 1 would not arise at this juncture.
If these aspects of the matter are kept in view and also the earlier orders of this Court is noticed, the manner in which respondent No. 2 proceeded to auction the said stray sites which fall under the said 30% category which is to be disbursed...as provided under the notification dated 30.04.2002, could not have been included in the notification for public auction. In any event, the said sites have not been auctioned in view of the intervention of this Court and the said notification has already spent itself. Therefore, there is no need to quash the said notification at this juncture. In the said circumstances, a direction is issued to respondent No. 2 to take note of the applications filed by the petitioners and consider as to whether they are entitled to allotment as per the Regulations in respect of 30% of the sites available for allotment to persons falling under the Category-B of the notification dated 30.04.2002 by considering their application also along with such other applications if any received. Such decision shall be taken by respondent No. 2 one way or the other in accordance with law as per the Regulations of respondent No. 2, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is furnished to respondent No. 2. The decision taken in that regard shall be communicated to the petitioners within the time frame stipulated. Needless to mention that if respondent No. 2 finds that the petitioners are entitled to allotment as per the Regulations, the allotment shall thereafter be made in favour of the petitioners and all process be completed in that regard expeditiously.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. No costs.