Allowed

Rita Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2019WPC/3178/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition quashing multiple orders (Memo No. 1, Letter No. 1, Memo No. 772) that cancelled a house lottery allotment and directed a fresh draw. The court held the action arbitrary and violated natural justice principles, following a precedent where similar cancellation was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside Memo No. 1 dated 12.07.2013, letter no. 1 dated 21.03.2015, and Memo No. 772 dated 26.05.2015.

Rita Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3178 of 2015

¶2

Rita Mishra, W/o Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, R/o Sushila Apartment- 1/B, Hatma Road, P.O. Jwaharnagar, P.S. Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus

¶3

1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶4

2. The Deputy Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶5

3. The Jharkhand State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board Headquarter, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶6

4. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi.

¶7

5. The Estate Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶8

6. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi Division, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. ... … Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent No. 3. : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv.

¶11

05/08.08.2019 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter contained in Memo No. 1/Allotment-07/2011/287 dated 12.07.2013 passed by the respondent no. 1 by which a direction has been given to the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board to cancel the entire, lottery process for allotment of Houses held on 20.08.2011. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order as contained in letter no. 1/Allotment-07/2011/192 dated 21.03.2015 passed by the Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand,

¶13

-2-

¶14

Housing Department whereby and whereunder the entire lottery process held on 20.08.2011 has been cancelled and the respondent no. 3 has been directed to re-allot the plots by “Fresh Draw of Lots”. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 772 dated 26.05.2015 passed by the respondent no. 5 by which the petitioner has been informed that in view of the decision of the Government dated 21.03.2015 the allotment of House No. CH-45 to the petitioner has been cancelled and he has been directed to participate in “Fresh Draw of Lots” for further allotment.

¶15

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned letter dated 26.05.2015 and the decision which was taken as reflected in the letter dated 21.03.2015 clearly indicates that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the lottery which was held on 20.08.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1346 of 2015 and its analogous cases and has stated that the present case is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered in the said cases.

¶16

On 03.07.2019 learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1346 of 2015 and its analogous cases to the learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board. Learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board was also directed to inform this Court as to whether the issue involved in the present case is similar to that of the issues which were involved in W.P.(C) No. 1346 of 2015. Today it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board that both the issues are same and similar.

¶17

-3-

¶18

The factual aspects of the case reveal that an advertisement dated 29.06.2011 was published in the notice board by the Jharkhand State Housing Board in which offers were invited from the public for allocation of houses and plots in different categories for Ranchi, Dhanbad, Hazaribagh, Jamshedpur, Daltonganj and Bokaro. The petitioner had purchased the application form and had accordingly deposited the same along with the requisite fees. The application form of the petitioner was found to be in order and the petitioner was therefore one of the participants in the lottery which was to be held on 20.08.2011. In the lottery held on 20.08.2011 the petitioner was one of the persons who were selected for being allotted a plot of land and accordingly the petitioner was allotted Plot No. CH-45 measuring an area of 2100 Sq.ft. for a consideration amount of Rs. 13,03,005/-. In terms of the allotment order an initial payment of Rs. 3,25,751/- was made and the balance amount of Rs. 9,77,500/- was also deposited. However, no agreement was executed and the petitioner could come to know that some complaints were made with respect to some irregularities in the lottery held on 20.08.2011 and based on the findings of the inquiry subsequent letters were issued including the letter dated 21.03.2015 by which the entire process of lottery held on 20.08.2011 was cancelled and consequently the petitioner was intimated about the same vide letter dated 26.05.2015 wherein she was directed to participate in a “Fresh Draw of Lots” for further allotment. The orders dated 21.03.2015 and 26.05.2015 appears to have been passed behind the back of the petitioner and the other successful allottees'. The petitioner was also not made available the inquiry report based upon which the letter no. 21.03.2015 was issued cancelling the

¶19

-4-

¶20

entire process of lottery held on 20.08.2011. The entire act on the part of the respondents is arbitrary considering the fact that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount consequent to the land having been allotted to the petitioner and taking a decision behind the back of the petitioner regarding certain irregularities held in the process of lottery which the petitioner was never aware of.

¶21

In W.P.(C) No. 1346 of 2015 and its analogous cases challenge was made to the decision of the respondent no. 1 dated 21.03.2015 by which the entire process of lottery was cancelled.

¶22

While setting aside the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the said writ petitioners it was held as follows:

¶23

“9. Considering the aforesaid facts, without going into the merits of the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the impugned order contained in letter dated 21.03.2015 requires interference on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, it is quashed. The original record of the 40th Meeting of the Housing Board held on 07.04.2015 has been produced and I have perused the same. I find that the agenda in respect to the cancellation of allotments made pursuant to advertisement dated 29.06.2011 merely reproduces the contents of letter dated 21.03.2015. Consequently, the decision of the respondent-Housing Board in its 40th Meeting held on 07.04.2015 cancelling the allotments in favour of the petitioners and others, is also quashed. ”

¶24

In view of the above, therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is stark on the face of it as the sequential events as narrated above would indicate.

¶25

Accordingly this writ application stands allowed and the Memo No. 1/Allotment-07/2011/287 dated 12.07.2013 passed by the respondent no. 1, letter no. 1/Allotment-07/2011/192 dated 21.03.2015 passed by

¶26

-5-

¶27

the Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Housing Department and Memo No. 772 dated 26.05.2015 passed by the respondent no. 5 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶28

This writ application stands allowed.

¶29

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶30

Alok/-

Rita Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ragho Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board

Baraik Manohar Singh Vs Yamuna Devi and Anr.

Raju Pandit Alias Raj Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Bijay Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chhedilal Poddar Vs Jadu Mahto