Allahabad High Court
Sri Dansahai Rajput Smiriti ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. Awas & ... on 22 November, 2013
Bench: Arun Tandon, Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25036 of 2010
Petitioner :- Sri Dansahai Rajput Smiriti Charit. Trust. S.Samiti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. Awas & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Narain
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.S.Singh,Madan Mohan
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioners' society had responded to an advertisement published by Avas and Vikas Parishad dated 28.3.2008 where under applications were invited from various societies, having the object of imparting education, to submit applications for allotment of plots in various schemes through out the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner being covered by the category of societies entitled to submit the application, applied for plot no. PS02 (Primary Vikas Yojana No. 1) falling within the Agra Zone. He also deposited the requisite money through bank draft to the tune of Rs. 2,62,000/-. The recommendation of the Education Authority, Basic Siksha in the facts of the case was also obtained by the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow under the letter dated 2.7.2009 from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah which was duly responded vide reply dated 21.7.2008. While the application of the petitioner was still being processed with reference to the advertisement published in 2008, the State Government had come out with a policy decision that all the societies which were allotted plots for statutory educational institutions by Avas and Vikas Parishad at concessional rates shall necessarily provide eduction to 10 per cent of the sanctioned strengthen, free of cost to the children of families residing below the poverty line and that they would be entitled to a rebate of 50 per cent of the fee. It was directed that the aforesaid direction shall be strictly complied with. It is only on the basis of this policy decision that the Property Manager, Uttar Pradesh Avas and Vikas Parishad has issued the impugned order dated 20.6.2009 informing the petitioner that the proceedings taken for allotment under the advertisement of 2008 have been rendered redundant, in view of the policy decision of 3.6.2009 and that the money deposited along with the application is being returned. Thereafter the Avas and Vikas Parishad has published a fresh advertisement for the same plot with the addition of the conditions, as provided for, under the Government Order dated 3.6.2009 referred to above. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court by means of the present petition.
Sri Jai Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government Order dated 3.6.2009 did not require the cancellation of the proceedings which had been taken in the matter of allotment of plots for educational institutions. It only required in-corporation of certain conditions to be made binding upon the societies which are allotted plots on concessional rates. The petitioners' society was ready and willing to comply with the conditions and for the said purpose a letter was specifically forwarded by the petitioners' society on 23.7.2009 and even today the society is ready and willing to comply with the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 3.6.2009. He also submits that the Government Order dated 3.6.2009 is prospective in nature and does not in any way nullify proceedings for allotment which were taken in the year 2008. He therefore submits that the entire exercise undertaken by the respondent is wholly arbitrary and is based on a misreading of the Government Order dated 3.6.2009.
Shri C.S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Avas and Vikas Parishad in reply submitted that in view of the policy decision as reflected in the Government Order dated 3.6.2009, all the applications received under the advertisement of 2008 have been rejected and money deposited has been returned and now a fresh advertisement has been published for the same plots and in the advertisement in addition to the earlier conditions incorporated, the conditions provided for in the Government Order dated 3.6.2009 have also been added. It is therefore his contention that the High Court may not interfere in the matter.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the records.
At the very outset, we may record that the Government Order dated 3.6.2009 is prospective in nature. It does not in any way direct the cancellation of the proceedings of allotment undertaken earlier. The application submitted by the petitioners in response to the advertisement of 2008 was complete in all respects and has been acted upon. The petitioner had also deposited the requisite money in terms of the advertisement. Cancellation of his application is based on a clear misreading of the Government Order dated 3.6.2009 and in any view of the matter the petitioner categorically has expressed in writing that he shall abide by the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 3.6.2009, and therefore we find no good reason for cancellation of the proceedings which have been initiated under the advertisement of 2008 in the matter of allotment of plots for educational institutions.
We may record that under the procedure which was prescribed for consideration of the applications under the advertisement of 2008, the application after being processed had to be transmitted to the Housing Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh Avas and Vikas Parishad, Lucknow who was required to place the same before the Committee to be constituted for the purposes, and if the Committee was satisfied with regard to the merits of the applications it shall proceed with the same. However, if there are more than two eligible candidates for the same plots draw of lotteries was to be resorted to. We, therefore, directed that the process of the selection from the Stage it had been closed under the order dated 20.6.2009, shall be re-initiated, and shall be brought to its logical end, so far as the the petitioners' application is concerned, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, before the respondent no. 2.
All consequential action shall be taken in accordance with law.
The Writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.11.2013
Priyanka
