S.P.MEHNDIRATTA vs STATE GOVERNMENT

BY this complaint, the complainant has prayed for various relief(s) including the relief for directions to the opposite party to withdraw the order dated 13.2.1992, Annexure P-10, whereby the allotment of the flat to the complainant and Provisional Registration No. 28-STRY-SFS-CAT-II (F) PH-II/ 90 for such purpose was cancelled.

THE brief relevant facts set out in the complaint are that in pursuance of an advertisement for the allotment of Category-II flat in Housing Board Colony at Strawberry Hills Estate, Shimla, the complainant applied for such allotment and alongwith the application, he furnished an affidavit before the opposite party to the effect that he did not own any house/flat/plot in his name or in the name of any of his family members individually or jointly within the area of Notified Area Committee, Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation of Himachal Pradesh and that he deposited the requisite money as demanded by the opposite party alongwith earnest money. THE draw of lots later on was held as per letter dated 5.7.1991, Annexure P-2 and consequently after the draw of lots, the complainant was in fact allotted a Category-1 flat vide letter dated 25.11.1991, Annexure P-3. No doubt this allotment letter requires the complainant to furnish an affidavit to the effect that he does not own individually or jointly any house, flat or plot in his name or in the name of his family within the area of any Notified Area Committee, Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation of Himachal Pradesh within 30 days but, according to the complainant, such condition contemplated in this allotment letter is arbitrary and should not be taken note of and the affidavit filed by the complainant initially alongwith the application should be considered as sufficient compliance of the requirement of furnishing of an affidavit to the above effect. Since the complainant could not furnish the required affidavit at the relevant time on allotment, that itself should not stand in the way of final allotment. THE action of the opposite party, therefore, of withdrawing the allotment and registration of the complainant is arbitrary and that the opposite party should be directed to withdraw that letter and that he should be allotted the flat. The opposite party has rebutted the allegations of the complainant in the reply and have stated that the purpose of this Scheme was to provide residential accommodation to the retiring and retired officers who do not own any house/flat/plot in their own names or m the names of any of their family members individually or jointly in the urban areas of Himachal Pradesh and those who possess such house, flat or plot in their names or in the names of their family members in urban areas of Himachal Pradesh, would not be allotted such flat, house or plot. Since the complainant, admittedly, owned a flat within the Municipal limits at the time of draw of lots before 24.9.1991, which was the mandatory requirement of the opposite party, he was not entitled to be allotted such a flat. The complainant, according to the opposite party, has concealed the fact that vide order dated 11.6.1991, Flat No. 8 in Housing Colony, Knoll''s Wood, Shimla which had been previously allotted to one Shri T.R. Suri was allowed to be transferred in the name of the complainant and that is why he did not file such affidavit as required after the draw of lots.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

MRS. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently submitted that it is not necessary that the affidavit should be filed by the complainant at the time of draw of lots to the above effect that he or any member of his family owns any house, flat or plot, as stated above. The affidavit filed originally alongwith the application should be considered as sufficient compliance of the requirement of furnishing of such an affidavit. We are unable to accept this contention. There is no dispute that as per advertisement, Annexure P-1, the complainant applied for allotment of flat and alongwith that application he also filed an affidavit that he did not own any house, flat or plot in his own name or in the name of any of his family members individually or jointly within the area of Notified Area Committee, Municipal Committee and Municipal Corporation of Himachal Pradesh. However, it may be noticed that while drawing of lots, as per letter dated 5.7.1991, Annexure P-2, aforementioned terms and conditions again were provided by the Housing Board in Clause-8, thereof. Not only that, vide allotment letter dated 25.11.1991, Annexure P-3, addressed to the complainant in para-6, it was again provided that the complainant should furnish an affidavit duly attested by the Executive Magistrate or Oath Commissioner to the effect that he does not own individually or jointly any house, flat or plot in his name or in the name of his family members within the area of any Notified Area Committee, Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation of Himachal Pradesh within 30 days of issue of this letter. Unfortunately, the complainant could not furnish such an affidavit as required to be furnished in terms of letter dated 25.11.1991, Annexure P-3 within 30 days and as such the opposite party has cancelled such an allotment. A bare perusal of allotment letter, Annexure P.3 would demonstrate that such allotment has been made to the complainant subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions was the requirement of furnishing of an affidavit as stated above. This was conditional allotment and since the condition was not satisfied, it cannot be said that such allotment has been made. Furthermore, since the purpose of the Scheme is to provide residential accommodation to the retiring or retired officers who do not own in their names or in the names of their family members any house, flat or plot in urban areas of Himachal Pradesh and the complainant already owned a house in his name or in the name of his family members at the relevant time on the date of allotment, naturally in terms of the letter Annexure P-3, he would not be entitled for the allotment of such flat. In case the requirement of furnishing affidavit is dispensed with, the very purpose of the Scheme to provide residential accommodation to retiring or retired officers would be defeated. Therefore, the opposite party is quite justified in withdrawing such an allotment.

IT is next contended by Mrs. Ranjana Parmar that one Shri J.R. Kainth who was Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer of H.P. Housing Board was allotted flat in the same schedule in Strawberry Complex although Shri J.R. Kainth was in possession of a plot below Bishop Cotton School in Shimla Development Authority Housing Colony. In the affidavit filed by the Superintending Engineer of H.P. Housing Board, the position has been made clear that Shri J.R. Kainth, no doubt, was allotted Plot No. 38, Type-B by the Shimla Development Authority on 5.5.1989 in Village Pateog under the Second Self-Financing Scheme but the above plot does not fall within the area of any Notified Area Committee, Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation of Himachal Pradesh. The case of the complainant and Mr. J.R. Kainth does not fall, therefore, in the same category and question of any discrimination does not arise. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel next contends that once the allotment has been made to the complainant vide Annexure P-3, he was competent to transfer this flat in the name of his married daughter under Clause 10 of Annexure P-2. The allotment, as already discussed above, was only conditional subject to furnishing of an affidavit and in the absence of furnishing of an affidavit, it cannot be said that there was final allotment in favour of the complainant. In these circumstances, the question of transfer of the flat does not arise.

IN the light of what is discussed above, there is no force in this complaint and the complaint is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Complaint dismissed.