Allowed

Anilkumar Himmatlal Parmar v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC1 Dec 2021SCA/12438/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted the petition and directed Respondent No. 2 to refund Rs. 7,500/- to the petitioner as there was no merit in the claim of denial of allotment due to alleged singling out, recognizing actual bank delays prevented application delivery.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to refund Rs. 7,500/- via account payee cheque within four weeks upon furnishing requisite details.

Anilkumar Himmatlal Parmar Vs State of Gujarat — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/SCA/12438/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12438 of 2016

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

ANILKUMAR HIMMATLAL PARMAR

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR ADITYA R PARIKH(8769) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MEET THAKKAR, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶13

Date : 01/12/2021

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to cancel the draw and declare a fresh draw regarding allotment of flats at Mukhya Mantri Aawas Yojana.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had paid Rs.7,500/- towards allotment of flat by virtue of draw dated 13.06.2015, his name did not figure in the draw.

¶17

Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 Corporation would draw the attention of the court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Mr. Ashok Vasava, Deputy Estate Officer (Housing Cell) with the Corporation and submit that reading the same would indicate that the State Government had introduced a scheme for allotting houses to the economically weaker sections of the society under the Mukhya Mantri Gruh Aawas Yojana. The implementation of the scheme is

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

C/SCA/12438/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶20

undertaken for providing 4389 dwelling houses for EWS in phase-II. EWS houses were constructed in 8 different locations in the land belonging to the Corporation with a view to give wide publicity to the scheme and the same was also published in the newspapers and different branches of banks were made a mode of distribution of forms for the scheme. The Corporation had received around 37042 applications from the public. He submitted that looking to the magnanimity of the scale of forms and the process involved in the collection, it is possible that some forms may not have reached the Corporation. What is pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply is that three applications including one of the petitioner did not reach the Corporation from the respective institutions. It is in this context that of the three applications, two allottees have been refunded the amount and the refund has been accepted by them. The petitioner was also offered a refund of the amount on 19.05.2016 but the petitioner has not collected the same.

¶21

3.1 Mr. Deep Vyas states that if the petitioner is willing to accept the amount of refund which was offered to him way back in the year 2016, the Corporation shall refund the said amount.

¶22

Looking to the explanation tendered in the affidavit-in-reply what is evident is that it is not the case of the petitioner that the Corporation singled him out denying allotment of the flat under EWS Scheme. Similar cases, two in number, in addition to that of the petitioner did not reach the Corporation in time not because of the fault of the Corporation but because the banks did not send out the filled application forms to the Corporation on time. The two failed allottees have accepted the refund of the amount whereas the petitioner has not accepted. This court is of the view that it will be in the fitness of things to direct refund of the amount

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C/SCA/12438/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶25

to the petitioner as there is no merit in the matter.

¶26

Accordingly, respondent no. 2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.7,500/- by way of an account payee cheque to the petitioner after the petitioner, in accordance with the communication dated 19.05.2016, furnishes the requisite details required. The said exercise of refund shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this court. It is clarified that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for applying in the ensuing schemes that may be promoted by the Corporation under the EWS and if the petitioner shall apply it shall be considered in accordance with law on its own merits without this order being considered as a disqualification.

¶27

With the above observations and directions, petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim relief if any shall stand vacated.

¶28

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶29

DIVYA

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Anilkumar Himmatlal Parmar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar Himmatlal Parmar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipesh Chandubhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Kanubhai Ratilal Sheth Vs State of Gujarat

Krishnachandra Jagannath Pathak Vs Municipal Commissioner

Harishkumar Valchand Khuha Vs Anand Municipality

Shikh Arvindersingh Diwansingh S/O Shikh Diwansingh Sundarsingh Vs State of Gujarat

Vijay Hathising Shah Vs State of Gujarat