The Executive Engineer And v. S.Karuppanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30.08.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI W.A.(MD)No.1118 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD)No.8069 of 2018 The Executive Engineer, Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai Housing Unit, Ellis Nagar, Madurai - 625 016. .. Appellant / 3rd respondent v.
1.S.Karuppanan 2.K.Krishnaveni .. Respondents/Petitioners 3.Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai -9..
4.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director, 493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.
.. Respondents / Respondents 1 & 2 Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 30.01.2017 in W.P(MD)No.9326 of 2013 on the file of this Court and allow this writ appeal. Prayer in WP(MD). 9326/ 2013 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order vide letter No. xJf;f P L 2(1)/64449/2006 dated 08/03/2013 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to complete the process of allotment made in favour of the petitioners vide G.O.Ms.2(D).No. 5 dated 04/01/2006.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Additional Advocate General for Mr.R.Janarthanan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem For R-3 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.] This writ appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai Housing Unit, challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.9326 of 2013.
2. The said writ petition was filed challenging order in letter no.allotment 2(1)/64449/2006, dated 08.03.2012 passed by the second respondent, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to complete the process of allotment made in favour of the petitioners therein, who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein vide G.O.Ms.2(D)No.5, dated 04.01.2006.
3. This is a classic example of where the officials of the Government Department go hand in glove with the applicants and take away the valuable lands earmarked for a definite sect of people by the Government.
4. The first and second respondents / writ petitioners were jointly given allotment of commercial plot bearing No.P10 in Sector 1 and 2 of Madurai North Neighbourhood Scheme vide G.O.2(D)No.5 Housing and Urban Development (vee.va.5(1) Department, dated 04.01.2006. Thereafter, vide G.O.(1D) No.83, Housing and Urban Development (HB5(1) Department dated 08.01.2008, the said allotment was cancelled. Challenging the same, W.P(MD)No.3579 of 2008 was filed by the first respondent before this Court. The order impugned in the said writ petition was set aside directing the Housing Board to issue a show-cause notice calling upon the first respondent to explain the grounds in it and after receiving objections and after giving due opportunity of being heard, to pass orders on merits. After the said order, there was a long silence.
Hence, the first respondent and second respondents filed W.P(MD)No.10095 of 2011 seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to complete the process of allotment made vide G.O(2D)No.5, dated 04.01.2006. In the meanwhile, the allotment made to the first respondent and second respondents as per G.O(2D)No.5 dated 04.01.2006 was cancelled on 08.03.2012 vide letter no. allotment 2(1)/64449/2006. In view of the cancellation, the first and second respondents withdrew W.P(MD)No.10095 of 2011 on 11.02.2013 and decided to challenge the cancellation order dated 08.03.2012.
Accordingly, W.P(MD)No.9326 of 2013 was filed.
5. The learned single Judge based on the orders passed in W.P (MD)Nos.4604 to 4610 of 2015, which related to the lands in Dindigul though under the discretionary quota, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation for execution of the sale deed. Further, it was held that the appellant cannot discriminate the allottees, who are similarly placed. On that ground, the impugned order dated 08.03.2012 was quashed and a direction was issued to execute the sale deed in favour of the first and respondents for the plot bearing No.P10 in Sector 1 and 2 of Madurai North Neighbourhood Scheme, within a period of twelve weeks.
6. The said order is now challenged by the appellant / third respondent, who is the Executive Engineer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the appellant brought to the knowledge of this Court that first of all, the first respondent being an employee of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting working as a Technician, is ineligible to apply for allotment of a flat/plot under the discretionary quota. It is pointed out that there is a circular memo No.P-2/47217/93 dated 23.08.1993, which prohibits any allottee, who already owns a house/flat/plot in any Municipal Corporation, Special Grade and 'A' Grade Municipality, Township, Town Panchayat in Tamil Nadu and in any Housing Scheme of Tamil Nadu Housing Board anywhere in Tamil Nadu or in any State/Union Territory Capital Town in the country either in his/her or in the name of the spouse or minor children.
8. In the meanwhile, it is pointed out that as per G.O(Ms)No.6 Housing and Urban Development (Vee.va.4.2) Department, dated 07.01.2011, the discretionary quota under which the first respondent applied, was withdrawn as a matter of Government policy.
9. Be that as it may, the first respondent had applied under discretionary quota of the Government as per G.O(Ms)No.288, Housing and Urban Development (vee.va.4(1) Department, dated 28.08.1997. The said discretionary quota is applicable only for the categories mentioned therein namely, (1) Destitute Women/widow, (2) Social Workers, (3) Physically handicapped persons,
(4) ex-serviceman/defence Personnel, (5) Senior Citizens,
(6) the persons excelled in Science, arts, literature, economics, public administration and sports, and (7) freedom fighters/Protector of Tamil language etc.
10. The first respondent had applied under the category 'social worker' by producing a certificate from the Lions Club International, Madurai, wherein it is stated that he had taken part in blood donation camps and eye operation camps. Other than this, there is no other document produced by him. Being an employee in the Government of India, it is easy for the first respondent to produce a salary certificate. But, he had chosen to produce a income certificate from the Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai South, as if he is self-employed.
11. In the meanwhile, the first respondent also was allotted a housing plot in his favour on 09.12.2010, which is a HIG-B-5 in R.M.Colony, Dindigul. When such being the case, the first respondent is otherwise ineligible to apply as he has already got an allotment in his favour in the year 2010 in Dindigul District. However, he had chosen to challenge the order passed in 2012, which is subsequent and obtained an order from this Court suppressing all the
above material facts.
12. In view of the withdrawal of discretionary quota and also subsequent allotment in favour of the first respondent in Dindigul, the first respondent is ineligible to apply and not entitled for allotment in his name in the Madurai North Neighbourhood Scheme. The first respondent and second respondents having suppressed all these facts, obtained an order, which is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
13. The officials, who were responsible for giving such allotment to the first and second respondents, despite knowing the fact that they were not entitled for allotment, are also to be punished.
14. The Chairman/Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai, is directed to verify the particulars of the officials, who were responsible for such allotment to the first and second respondents at the relevant point of time and take appropriate Departmental action against them for their irresponsible act of not even verifying the basic details of eligibility.
15. In the light of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 30.01.2017 passed in W.P(MD)No.9326 of 2013, by the learned single Judge is set aside. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To:
1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.. 2.The Chairman/Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.
+1CC TO MR.R.JANARTHANAN,ADVOCATE IN.SR.NO.81193. +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR.NO.81468. PM DS RSK SAR-4 12.10.2018 4P/5C W.A(MD)No.1118 of 2018 30.08.2018