R.K. Munjal vs Chairman

Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against order of the Ld. Single Judge dt. 27.09.2012.

The brief facts which can be noticed from the record and relevant for the present purpose are that the appellant applied for allotment of a house (HIG) under the General Registration Scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board, 1981 in Kota Scheme and priority number was allotted to him by the Housing Board vide its letter

It reveals from the record that there was change of address of the appellant and that he informed the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, Vallabh Bari, Kota vide his letter dt. 15.07.1986 indicating change of address. However, in the instructions booklet at para-3.8 in particular, it has been clearly indicated that if there is any change of address of the applicant, it has to be informed to the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and indisputably there was no correspondence ever made by the appellant for change of address to be noted in the registration which took place in the year 1981 at the office of Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and indisputably para-3.8 of the instructions booklet was not complied with.

It reveals from the record that letter of allotment was issued by the respondent-Board to the appellant on 23.10.1996 on the address which was available in their records maintained by the respondent and as regards letter sent by him for change of address dt. 15.07.1986 certainly that could not have been noticed at the Head Office at Jaipur which manages and regulates all allotments made across the State and the letter of change of address sent by the appellant dt. 15.07.1986 was addressed to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota whereas in fact the Chairman sits at the Head Office at Jaipur and not at Kota. It is not the case of the appellant that he has ever enquired in the meanwhile after the letter for change of address was sent by him to the office of Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota or at the Head Office, Jaipur as to whether it has been properly acknowledged and appropriate corrections in the records have been made by the Board and when the conditions for allotment were not complied with by the appellant, the allotment was cancelled by the Board on 15.12.1999 and it can be noticed by this court that from July, 1986 upto the filing of writ petition before the Ld. Single Judge of this court, some correspondence took place between the parties but ultimately fact remains is that the writ petition came to be filed in the year 2005 and it was prayed that the cancellation be quashed and set aide and the appellant may be permitted to deposit the amount in terms of the letter of allotment dt. 23.10.1996 and possession of the house, once allotted to him, be handed over.

It was also pleaded by the respondents in the reply that after cancellation, a cheque of Rs. 5,600/- was sent to him against refund after due adjustment of money towards cancellation i.e. 20% of the amount of Rs. 7,000/- and that has been encashed by the appellant and remainder amount of Rs. 3,000/-, claimed by the appellant, however, has yet not been refunded.

Counsel for appellant submits that once the letter was sent for change of address by him in the office of the Board, even if at Kota and receipt thereof is available on record, at least this could not be considered to be a ground for cancellation of his allotment, as the letter of allotment has never been made available by the Board on the changed address, indicated by him in his letter dt. 15.07.1986 and further submits that the cheque of Rs. 5,600/-, after deduction of 20% amount of Rs. 7,000/- sent to him was never sent by him to his Banker for encashment, thus, for all practical purposes the refund sent by the Board was never encashed and further, on instructions, submits that appellant is ready to deposit all the penal charges in reference to the letter of allotment if the Board hand over the possession of allotted house to him.

The appeal has been opposed by the respondent''s counsel and while supporting the judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge, counsel submits that cancellation has taken place on 15.12.1999 and the money has also been refunded to the appellant in the form of a cheque and if the appellant has not encashed the same, as alleged by him, that will not give any right or cause to him to file writ petition at a belated stage of 6 years and no legal right otherwise could be conferred in favour of the appellant only because he is one of the registered holder under the Scheme of 1981 and further submits that once there are clear instructions that everyone has to send letter to the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur in the event of any change of address in compliance of para-3.8 of the booklet, which indisputably the appellant has not complied with, at least the Board could not be held at fault in cancelling the allotment once made in favour of the appellant and that being so, the Ld. Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the order impugned in the instant proceedings.

We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record.

We find that the letter dt. 15.07.1986 was addressed to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota and as per the instructions contained in the booklet, which was made available to the appellant, under para-3.8 indisputably, it was to be addressed to the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur moreover the fact remains that Chairman of the Board sits at Jaipur and not at Kota and because of this fact the letter sent by the appellant dt. 15.07.1986 remain unnoticed and cannot be considered to be in compliance of the instructions issued by the Board and apart from it, the cheque of refund was also sent to the appellant after adjustment of 20% of the amount of Rs. 7,000/- and if the appellant has failed to encash the same, he cannot make complaint before the court on account of cheque not being encashed by him.

The Ld. Single Judge has recorded a finding that the money was encashed by the appellant but this fact, according to the appellant is not correct. We are not inclined to go into the question as to whether the money was encashed by the appellant or not but this fact stands established from the record available before us that indisputably instructions contained in para-3.8 of the booklet have not been complied with by the appellant, at least he cannot make complaint to this court that the cancellation of allotment by the Board vide letter dt. 15.12.1999 was not valid and the same cannot be a ground in filing the writ petition at such a belated stage.

As regards submissions made that he is ready and willing to pay the penal charges, that cannot be countenanced by this court at such a belated stage more so, when the allotment has been cancelled by the Board long back and the house which was once allotted to the appellant must have been allotted to some other allottee and mere allotment once made in favour of the appellant does not confer any absolute right upon the appellant and as regards refund of the amount is concerned, this fact has been disputed by the appellant that he has not encashed the cheque of Rs. 5,600/-. We leave it open to the Board to examine their records and if the money/refund has not been debited in the account of the Board so far, the same be considered and a fresh cheque or the refund of the said amount be sent to the appellant at the address which has been indicated by him in the cause title of the present

We do not find any manifest error committed by the Ld. Single Judge in the order impugned, which requires interference by this court in the intra-court appeal.

Consequently, the instant appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed with the observations made supra.