Sharad Ramarao Nadkarni vs State of Karnataka and Others

Balakrishna, J.-The petitioner is an Ex. Serviceman, having worked in the Indian Air Force as a non-commissioned officer in the Rank of Corporal and he retired from service on 10-6-1969, after completion of meritorious service of about 15 years. Subsequent to his retirement he is now employed in a private concern at Hubli with a meagre salary and pension. A notification was issued by respondent-2 on behalf of the Karnataka Housing Board inviting applications of intending purchasers for allotment of houses built by the Karnataka Housing Board, on lease-cum-sale basis, in respect of Middle Income Group and Low Income Group Schemes at Nagasetty Koppa, Hubli. The petitioner is one of the applicants in the category of Low Income Group Housing Scheme, in which 14 houses were available. After some time in April, 1977, the second respondent intimated the petitioner that his application has been rejected and hence the petitioner is aggrieved.

Though the petitioner was aggrieved, he did not proceed to challenge the order of rejection. However, the petitioner chose to make a second application in response to the Notification published in Deccan Herald dated 4-3-1979. He had applied for Middle Income Group house in lease-cum-sale as well as in outright sale categories. In the lease-cum-sale category, 20 houses were notified for allotment of sites measuring 40'' x 60'' and in the category of outright sale, 6 houses were notified with Sital measurement of 60'' x 40''. The petitioner applied in accordance with the notification making due deposits as required. This time also the petitioner was disappointed, since his application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to various authorities, but invain. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief.

The case of the petitioner is that there is a special quota reserved for Defence personnel, including Ex-Servicemen to the extent of 5%, as could be seen from the Karnataka Housing Board Allotment Regulations, 1983. The reservation is provided for under Regulation-4 as well as Regulation-9.

According to Regulation-4(1), the Board may on its own or under directions from Government reserve sites/houses in any area for allotment to any specified class of persons and such class of persons may consist of employees in any office or establishment in the City, Town or other places in which the sites are formed/houses are constructed. There shall be reserved in each area where houses/sites are notified, a discretionary quota up to 10% in each category of houses/sites, subject to a maximum of ten, which may be disposed of by the Board at its discretion, with the prior approval of the Government.

Under Regulation-9, it is provided under Clause (b) that all applications for particular category of houses/sites such as High Income Group, Middle Income Group, Low Income Group or Economically Weaker Section received for allotment of a house/site in each area shall be classified into the following categories: This includes a classification in respect of Defence Personnel/Ex-Serviceman. Similarly, it is provided under the same Regulation that the notified houses/sites, after reserving the Boards discretionary quota as specified in Rule-4(1) in each area for each category of house, shall be earmarked to the above categories as follows:

(a) Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe/Backward Tribe..................................18%

(b) Defence Personnel including Ex-Serviceman............................................5%.

According to the petitioner, it is crystal clear that barring the application of the petitioner, there was no other application from the category of Defence Personnel or Ex-Serviceman and the denial of the allotment is a violation of the regulations and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a direction for allotment from this Court.

There can be absolutely no doubt about the fact that the petitioner who belongs to the category of Ex-Serviceman, is entitled to consideration for allotment of a house by virtue of the special provision made under the Regulations in reserving the special quota for the purpose of allotment of sites or houses to persons belonging to Ex-Serviceman category. The fact that the petitioner belongs to the category of Ex-Serviceman is beyond dispute. No reason is given as to why the petitioner was denied allotment despite the fact that he is entitled to special reservation under regulations and it appears to me that the impugned rejection of the application of the petitioner under Annexure-H is unjustified. Apart from the fact that the conduct of the authority is arbitrary, it has to be observed that the Board cannot ignore its own regulation and particularly the reservation of sites and houses which are intended to be in the interest of certain classified categories, such as Ex-Serviceman. Looking from any angle, I do not see any justification whatsoever in the rejection of the application of the petitioner for allotment of a house under the Middle Income Group Scheme.

In view of the above facts, I pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed. The first and the second respondents are directed to allot one of the houses built by the second respondent under the Middle Income Group category, either on lease-cum-sale basis or outright sale in Keshavapura, Hubli or in the alternative to allot any one of the houses out of the two houses declared as stray houses in the said Group of houses at Keshavapura, Hubli or any other available houses expeditiously. Respondent No. 2 is directed to take prompt action in complying with the direction of this Court within 60 days, from the date of the receipt of this order and the copy of this order shall be communicated forthwith to the second respondent.

Shri Sateesh M. Doddamani, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file meme of appearance for the first respondent.

Writ Petition Allowed.