High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4872/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL ) Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C . Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. N.N . Upadhayay, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is a journalist by profession. The Assam State Housing Bo 2. ard, in short, ASHB, had undertaken certain housing projects in different urban areas in Assam. After the buildings are constructed, these are rented out. Housi ng projects were also undertaken in Bhetapara and Borsojai in Guwahati. Applicat ions were invited by the ASHB for letting out on rent the residential flats in B hetapara and Borsojai and the petitioner had also submitted his application. How ever, the petitioner was not allotted any flat on rent. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not praying for cancellation of flats allotted to different persons on rent in Bhetapara and Borsojai. He will also not be assailing the action of the authorit ies in not selecting him for the purpose of allotment of a flat on rent. The sol e point urged by Mr. Bhattacharyya is that the ASHB does not have any laid down norms for allotment of flats on rent which would make the allotment process tran sparent. According to him, ASHB must have norms/guidelines in view of the fact t hat while number of applicants are many, flats available to be given on rent are few. It is also pointed out by him that having a well laid down norms would hel p in streamlining the process of allotment and eliminate arbitrariness. Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the ASHB has submitted tha 4. t presently no constructions have been undertaken by ASHB for offering it to the public on rent. He also submits that Rule 15 of the ASHB Rules, 1976 is the onl y norms in the matter of allotment of flats. He has further submitted that befor e the allotments were made at Bhetapara and Borsojai, some guidelines had been a dopted in the meeting of Board of Directors dated 18.07.2007 in the matter of al lotment of flats and in this connection, he draws the attention of the Court to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit. He also points out with reference to paragraph 10 of the affidavit that in the matter of new allotment, guidelines reflected in th e minutes of the discussion of the Board of Directors held on 18.07.2008 is bein g followed. It is submitted by him that petitioner having been given a flat on r ent earlier, he is not eligible for one more flat. Mr. N.N. Upadhaya, learned State Counsel submits that guidelines/norms w 5. ill make the process of allotment transparent and it is high time some norms are put in place. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. 7. There is no dispute that ASHB is a State within the meaning of Article 1 2 of the Constitution of India. Rule 15 of the Rules pertains to condition of oc cupation of housing accommodation and Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) are not at all r elated to allotment of flat on rent. Rule 15(3) provides that the Board shall de cide and approve the names of persons who shall be allowed housing accommodation on the terms and conditions as mentioned in Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2). From the Rules, it is not discernable the basis on which the Board shall decide and appr ove the names of persons for allowing them to occupy housing accommodation. 8. Though Mr. Goswami has mentioned about some guidelines which had been ad opted in the minutes of the Board of Directors, copy of the guidelines or the mi nutes of the meetings have not been placed on record for the perusal of the Cour t. Learned counsel for ASHB is also unable to show on what basis statement was m ade that the petitioner is disqualified to apply for a flat as he was already in occupation of another flat of ASHB. 9. It is too late in the day to contend that the Board has absolute discret ion in the matter of allotment of flats to the applicants. There may be some d iscretion but such discretion has to be exercised based on certain guidelines/no rms. Action of the State, whether it relates to distribution of largesse, grant of contracts, allotment of land or allotment of quarters, is to be tested on the anvil and touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The underlying In Ramanna Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, object of Article 14 is to secure all persons, citizens or non-citizens, the eq uality of status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble to the Constitution . Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies and existence of arbitrariness in a State action results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and eq uality of treatment. It requires that State action must be based on valid releva nt principles applicable alike to all similarly situated persons and it must not be guided by any irrelevant or extraneous considerations as that would result i n denial of equality. The State action has to be fair, reasonable, non-discrimin atory, transparent and without any nepotism or favouritism. The mandate of Artic le 14 of the Constitution of India is that State action should conform to norms which are rational, informed with reasons and guided by public interest. 10. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489, the Apex Court laid down as follows: (cid:28)12. s dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contra cts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Gover nment cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, d eal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standa rd or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrerlevant. The power or disc retion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of j obs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc. must be confined and structured by ration al, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government depar ts from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Gov ernment that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid princi ple which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. (cid:29) & &It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government i Thus, the requirement or obligation of having well defined norms or guid 11. elines in the context of allotment of flats by ASHB needs no emphasis. However, the materials on record do not satisfy the Court about existence of norms or gui delines in this respect. It is imperative that ASHB formulates comprehensive nor ms/guidelines on the subject of allotment of flats on rent. 12. ines for allotment of flats on rent. 13. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents will frame norms/guidel
Decision
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No costs.