IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2136 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17106 of 2007)

Umesh Pandey      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Chairman, Bihar State Housing Board, Bihar and Ors.      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

In response to an advertisement issued by the Bihar Housing Board (for

short,  “the  Board”),  a  number  of  persons  including  the  respondent  applied  for

allotment  of  MIG  house  in  the  town  of  Arrah.   The  respondent  submitted  the

required documents.   A lottery was drawn on 12.1.1983 to determine as  to which

house  would go to the particular applicant but  only 23 out of  30 applicants were

allotted houses  measuring 2250 sq.  fts.  At  an estimated cost  of   Rs.86,913/-.   The

respondent  was  not  allotted  the  house  on  the  pretext  that  he  had  not  submitted

affidavit in the prescribed format.  He filed a writ petition, which was registered as

CWJC No.5774 of 1986 for issue of a direction to the Board to allot him MIG house.

By an order dated 9.9.1987,  the High Court  directed the Board to file  a  detailed

affidavit giving particulars of the persons whose cases were considered for allotment

of houses and names of the persons whose applications were rejected on the ground of

being defective.  However, the required affidavit was not filed.

During the pendency of  the writ  petition,  the respondent was allotted a

house at Dalpatpur (Arrah) at an estimated cost of Rs.1,49,370/-.  The area of the new

house was 1237 sq. feet as against 2250 sq. feet of the houses allotted in 1993 at an

estimated cost of Rs.86,913/-.   

...2/-

- 2 -  

At the hearing of the writ petition, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of

the Board wherein it was stated that the cost of each of the four houses which were

not allotted in 1983 had been worked out as Rs.3,73,719/-  as on 31.12.1995.  This

amount was arrived at by adding interest for the period from 1.12.1983 to 31.12.1995.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 20.3.1996.  He held

that the action of the Board to exclude the writ petitioner from the lottery held in

1983 was wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustified and accordingly directed the

Board to allot a house to the writ petitioner.  On appeal, the Division Bench of the

High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the premise that during

the pendency of the writ petition, the Board had offered another house to the writ

petitioner, which was not challenged by him.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused  the  records,  we  are  of  the  view that  the  learned  Single  Judge  was  quite

justified  in  allowing  the  writ  petition  because  the  Board  did  not  offer  any  valid

ground for excluding the respondent’s application at the time of lottery held in 1983.

Undisputedly, the respondent was neither informed about the so-called defect in the

affidavit nor he was given opportunity to rectify the same.  This being the position,

the Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the direction given by the learned

Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court is set aside and the one passed by the learned Single Judge is

restored.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, April 02, 2009.