Apex Court Orders Fresh Allotments, Imposes Costs on Governing Body for Unfair Practices
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has invalidated the controversial allotment of super deluxe flats by the Haryana Urban Development Authority's Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO) following allegations of nepotism and favoritism. The ruling, delivered by Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, underscores the necessity for transparency and fairness in the operations of societies, especially those involving government employees and public land.
The case, titled "Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana," addressed the contentious allocation of housing facilities by HEWO, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The appellant, Dinesh Kumar, challenged the allotment to two members, alleging that it was based on favoritism and did not adhere to the established eligibility criteria.
The Supreme Court's decision comes in response to an appeal following the Punjab and Haryana High Court's earlier dismissal of Kumar's petition. The Supreme Court found the invocation of Article 226 appropriate, considering the government's involvement through land allotments and the society's objective to provide housing to government employees. The Court criticized the High Court's cursory dismissal of the petition, noting the significant evidence of bias and arbitrary decision-making.
Highlighting the rules and regulations of HEWO, the Court found that the preferential allotment to a governing body member who did not satisfy the eligibility criteria constituted a clear act of favoritism. Moreover, the allotment to another ineligible member was also deemed invalid. The Court emphasized that such societies must operate with fairness, transparency, and accountability, avoiding any semblance of bias or self-aggrandizement.
As a consequence, the Supreme Court annulled the previous housing allocations and mandated a fresh draw of lots among eligible applicants. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on HEWO, Rs. 50,000 on the third respondent, and Rs. 25,000 on the fourth respondent for their roles in the unfair allotments. These costs are to be paid within two months, with specific amounts directed towards litigation expenses for the appellant and contributions to the Legal Services Committee of the Supreme Court.
The respondents have been ordered to vacate the premises and receive refunds of their deposits within a month. The decision is expected to have significant implications for governance and accountability within societies managing public resources and government-affiliated entities.
Bottom Line:
Allotment of housing facilities by a society must adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability. Preferential allotments violating eligibility criteria and rules are invalid, and acts of favoritism or bias in such allotments are condemnable.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Societies Registration Act, 1860
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2854334
