Dhananjay Kumar Singh vs Jharkhand State Housing Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 4226 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                           W. P. (C) No. 1895 of 2011

       Dhananjay Kumar Singh                                 .... .. ...   Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
      Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi,
      Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu, P.S. Argora,
      P.O. Harmu, Dist. Ranchi & Ors.                            .. ... ...  Respondent(s)
                            ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO [Through- Video Conferencing] .........

       For the Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate.
                                             Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Advocate
       For the Resp.-JSHB               :
                            ..........

09 / 17.11.2021. Heard, Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Senior counsel assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Pragati Prasad.

Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Senior counsel has submitted that the instant Writ Petition was filed on 15.04.2011 for quashing the order as contained in Letter No.2299 dated 14.09.2004 whereby the allotment of the petitioner's House No.281/2- 4 has been cancelled by the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur Division without giving any notice to show cause and for a further direction upon the respondents to allot and give possession of one vacant House/flat constructed under the subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme to the petitioner.

Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Senior counsel has further submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed a detail order on 04.05.2011, which may profitably be recorded hereunder:-

"1. Notice.

2. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, waives notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3.

3. Notice upon respondent no.4 to be served under ordinary process, for which, talbana etc. must be filed within ten days.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has ventilated so many grievances about the cancellation of the allotted house merely because somebody else is residing in the house allotted to the petitioner. Basically, it is prime duty vested in respondent no.3 to allot peaceful possession of the house in question to the petitioner. Prima facie, it appears that initially, somebody else i.e. respondent no.4 was alloted the house in question. Subsequently, it was found by respondent no.3 that respondent no.4 was not at all an employee of the private entrepreneur and therefore, his allotment was cancelled and again the house was allotted to the petitioner, but, respondent no.4 is still residing in the very same house for no fault of the petitioner.

5. It appears that the petitioner was alloted the house, deposited requisite money as per Annexure-8 to the memo of the present petition.

Thus, for no fault of the petitioner, the allotment of the house has been cancelled. Nonetheless, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even if respondent no.3 will allot any other house, he has no much grievance to be ventilated int his writ petition and he is ready to withdraw this writ petition, if another house, similar in nature with the same price, with the same terms and conditions and without compelling the petitioner to deposit any further amount.

6. In view of the above submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I hereby, direct respondent no.3 to explore possibility for allotment of another house to the petitioner with the same terms and conditions upon which the earlier house was allotted to the petitioner. This possibility will be explored by respondent no.3 on or before the next date of hearing.

7.Post this matter on 9th June, 2011."

Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Senior counsel has further submitted that pursuant to order dated 09.06.2011, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 by his wife, Shanti Devi, on 05.09.2011, stating therein that respondent No.4 (Girish Chandra Das) has died on 12.06.2011 leaving behind the following heirs:-

1.Smt. Shanti Devi- Wife
2.Birendra Das      - Son
3.Mahendra Das      -Son
4.Keshwati Devi     -Married Daughter
5.Geeta Devi        -Married Daughter
6.Manju Devi        - Married Daughter
7.Kumari Rita       - Daughter.

It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that Quarter No.281/2-4 was allotted in favour of the husband of the deponent vide allotment letter dated 5.4.2003 and thereafter Hire-Purchase Agreement was executed by the Housing Board on 10 th June, 2003. At the time of allotment, the total value of of the flat was estimated at Rs.52,768/-, out of which the husband of the petitioner had deposited Rs.26,578/- and thereafter monthly installment is being continued till date.

Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Senior counsel has further submitted that another counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3 (Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Adityapur, Jamshedpur) on 14.09.2011 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, stating therein that the petitioner has violated the terms of monthly agreement. His allotment was rightly cancelled as the status of petitioner over the House No.281/2-4 is that of trespasser having no legal authority. The Quarter No. 281/2-4 was allotted in favour of one Girish Chandra Das (respondent No.4), but as he sublet the same to other person, his allotment was cancelled on the ground of sub-

letting as he ceased to be the employee of Pioneer Engineering Company. It has further been stated in the said counter-affidavit, that on the spot enquiry of Quarter No. 281/2-4, it has been found that the original allottee sublet the the said quarter to an employee of P.H.E.D. (Vide Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition). His allottment was cancelled vide Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition). After said cancellation of allotment of Girish Chandra Das (respondent No.4), the petitioner applied for allotment of said quarter in his favour on monthly rental basis and after deserving all the formalities, the said quarter was subsequently allotted in favour of the petitioner on monthly rental basis, but as the petitioner never renewed the monthly Lease Agreement and failed to deposit the required rent, his allotment was also cancelled validly. The petitioner never made any attempt to execute the monthly agreement for the said quarter and even he failed to fulfill the formalities for allotment of said quarter on monthly rental basis. Hence, the cancellation order dated 14.09.04 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) was passed, which was communicated to the petitioner. As such, there is no irregularity nor any violation of natural justice.

It has also been stated in the counter-affidavit that from perusal of Annexure- 11 of the Writ Petition itself, it is apparent that respondent No.4 (Garish Chandra Das) has entered into registered hire-purchase agreement on 05.06.2003 which has been challenged by the petitioner.

To both the counter-affidavits dated 05.09.2011 on behalf of respondent No.4 as well as on 13.09.2011 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the writ petitioner filed its rejoinder jointly on 10.10.11, stating therein that the respondent has not disclosed that which of the terms has been violated by the petitioner, as such the cancellation of the allotment is bad, arbitrary and illegal. The house in question was validly allotted to the petitioner vide Letter No.1088 dated 15.04.2004 (Annexure-8/1 to the Writ Petition) which was subsequently cancelled by letter dated 14.09.2004 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition) within 5 months and that too, without assigning any reason and without giving any notice. Since the possession of the house in question was never given to the petitioner, so the statement of the respondent-JSHB that status of the petitioner is that of trespasser is apparently misleading.

It has further been replied by the petitioner that respondent no.4 (Garish Chandra Das, now deceased) ceased to be an employee of M/s Pioneer Engineering Company and had sub-let the house in question so the allotment was cancelled but in the affidavit filed on behalf of the heirs of the Respondent no.4, it is stated that still the rent is being accepted by the Housing Board and receipts are being granted. Both these statements are false and misleading.

It has further been asserted by the petitioner in its reply that one Mr. Digambar Khan along with his family member is residing therein.

It has also been stated by the petitioner that the Housing Board, is accepting that the house in question has been allotted to Respondent no.4 after cancelling the allotment of the petitioner, but the occupancy of the house is with Mr. Digambar Khan and as such, it is a clear case of sub-letting and it seems that it is well within the knowledge of the housing Board and may be with connivance with respondent no.3. The cancellation of allotment of the petitioner is thus malafide and arbitrary either to accommodate respondent no.4 or Mr. Digambar Khan.

Today, no body appears on behalf of the Jharkhand State Housing Board. However, on Virtual mode, learned counsel, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh [who is one of the counsels appearing for the Housing Board] is available. This Court has asked him that what happened to this case, but he was unable to submit as because he was not given to this file.

From perusal of the records as well as order dated 23.02.2021, it appears that Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order referring para-5 & 6 of order dated 04.05.2011 and also taken note that :-

"Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 is not aware of the fact or neither has received any instruction in view of the order dated 04.05.2011. However, he seeks some time to comply the same.

Almost 10 years have passed, but till date no reply has been filed in pursuant to the said order passed by this Court.

As prayed, put up this case after four weeks."

Thereafter, it appears that nothing has been brought on record with regard to direction issued by Coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 04.05.2011 nor the Jharkhand State Housing Board while filing counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 on 13.09.2011 has considered to comply the order dated 04.05.2011 nor order dated 23.02.2021 whereby four weeks' time was granted. It appears that more than 9 months have elapsed, but the Law Officer/ Officer-in- Charge of the Jharkhand State Housing Board has no respect in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court nor he is diligent in pursuing the matter, rather because of inaction on the part of the Housing Board particularly of the Law Officer/ Officer-in-Charge, the Writ Petitions are pending before this Court for years to years particularly in the present case for more than 10 years.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, ordinarily this Court is not passing such orders, but in view of the chequered history of this case, where the Housing Board is admitting in its counter-affidavit dated 14.09.2011 as made in part of Para-9 of the

counter-affidavit, which is profitably quoted hereunder :-

9. That with regard to the statements made in paras 8 to 14 of the writ application are true to the extent that there was on the spot enquiry of Qr. No.281/2-4 and having found that the original allottee sublet the said quarter to an employee of P.H.E.D. (vide Annexure-4 of the Writ Petition) his allotment was cancelled (vide Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition), but in the counter-affidavit filed by the Housing Board, they are also admitting that rent is being collected. The Housing Board has registered hire-purchase agreement on 05.06.03 and also accepting the rent.

These are the reasons for the Housing Board not to comply the order dated 04.05.2011 as well as the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court even after lapse of 11 years and 9 months respectively.

This Court has considered the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (Dr) and others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 227, para-51 of which is profitably quoted hereinbelow:-

51. This Court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of public standards or public morals and public morale. It is necessary to cleanse public life in this country along with or even before cleaning the physical atmosphere. The pollution in our values and standards in (sic is) an equally grave menace as the pollution of the environment. Where such situations cry out the courts should not and cannot remain mute and dumb.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court has taken a stringent view of the matter as initially for the 11 years, the order dated 04.05.2011 was not complied even after reminder with displeasure, the order dated 23.02.2021 has also not been complied by the Legal Officer / Officer-in-charge of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court directs the Competent Authority / Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board / Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to put the Legal officer / Officer-in-Charge of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi under suspension with immediate effect contemplating departmental proceeding / enquiry for non-compliance of order passed by this Court for 11 years.

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi is also directed to file compliance report of order dated 04.05.2011 and 23.02.2021 before this Court within a period of three weeks from today.

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi as well as Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi at once.

Later On

At about 3:40 P.M., learned counsel, Mr. Sachin Kumar, appears on behalf of the Housing Board and he has submitted that since in the cause list, his name has not been reflected, he could not appear earlier in this matter and has prayed that order of suspension may be re-called as the Legal Officer / Officer-in-Charge has handed over the file to him and they are diligent in compliance of the order.

After hearing learned counsel, Mr. Sachin Kumar, this Court considers his submissions and refused to recall the order in view of the fact that even if the Law Officer / Officer-in-Charge of the Jharkhand State Housing Board has handed over file to the counsel, but it was incumbent upon him to comply the order dated 04.05.2011 passed by the Coordinate Bench, while filing counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 on 13.09.2011, and should have been diligent in compliance of the Court's order. When such order has not been complied, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has taken such view by recording again para-5 & 6 of the order dated 04.05.2011 on 23.02.2021, showing displeasure that almost 10 years have elapsed, but till date no reply has been filed in pursuant to the said order passed by this Court.

The Law Officer / Officer-in-Charge of Jharkhand State Housing Board is not complying the order dated 04.05.2011 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also dated 23.03.2021 even after passing 11 years of order dated 4.05.2011 and 9 months of the order dated 23.03.2021 which shows his disrespect towards compliance of the Court's order in discharging his duties and one of the reasons for creating menace in the system which will be apparent from the counter-affidavit. The Law Officer / Officer-in-Charge of Jharkhand State Housing Board is even careless in discharging his duty which shows disrespect towards courts order, disrespect towards his duty, carelessness towards his duty as an Officer-in-Charge of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, which amounts to serious dereliction of duty.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has passed such stringent order in exceptional circumstances and is not inclined to modify the same.

This Court directs the Registry of this Court to reflect the name of learned counsel, Mr. Sachin Kumar in the cause list as counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board.

Let the matter appear after three weeks awaiting the affidavit of the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/