1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that non-petitioner No. 1, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur (for brevity, 'the Board') be directed to allot a house of High Income Group (HIG) Category to the petitioner in Jawahar Nagar Scheme, Jaipur and amendment in Regulation 8 of the Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Regulations'), insofar as it gives powers to the Slate Government to reserve 1% of the constructed houses for allotment to any person, be declared ultra vires, struck down and all allotments made in pursuance to Regulation 8(a) be quashed.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner applied for registration in General Registration Scheme of 1973, for Jaipur, for allotment of a house in Janta Group and deposited the registration amount of Rs. 100/ - for the same (Anx, 1). This Scheme was for Jawahar Nagar and Lal Kothi areas. In the year, 1981, the Board introduced revised procedure for registration of the house, the information of which was published in the newspaper (Anx. 2). According to the revised procedure, such persons, who were not allotted houses till, 1981, were given choice to file applications from May 1, 1982 to June 15, 82, for change of the category. It was further stated that those who do not apply for change of the category within the above-mentioned period, their applications will not be considered, after the expiry of the period mentioned above. Thereupon, the petitioner applied for change of the category to HIG and deposited the amount of Rs. 9,900/- with the Board (Anx. 3). Thereafter, the Board issued a letter dated November 5, 1986 (Anx. 4), by which, the category of the petitioner was changed to HIG and he had to deposit Rs. 30,000/- in twoinstalments. Rs. 15,000/ - were to be deposited within a period of one month from the date of issuance of the letter and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- was to be deposited within seven months. However, the petitioner deposited Rs. 30,000/- on September 12,1988 (Anx. 5). An application was filed by Mr. Ajay Chug, pointing out that the applicant had not impleaded any of the persons named in Schedules I and II as parties, in whose favour, under the provisions of Regulation 8(a), allotments have been made and the applicant was also one of such allottees. It was, therefore, prayed that he may be allowed to be impleaded as party. The Court allowed this application vide order dated January 18, 1990 and Mr. Chug was impleaded as party. Another application was filed by Mr. Bhawani Sharma through Mr. G.S. Bapna, learned counsel, that he may also be impleaded as respondent, since the petitioner has challenged the allotments on the same ground and the applicant is one of the allottees and will be directly affected by the decision of this writ petition. This applicant was allowed to be heard as intervener.
3. It is submitted by Mr. R.S. Mehta, learned counsel, that persons, who were registered, after the petitioners, have been allotted houses, but the petitioner has not been allotted any house till today. It is further submitted that plots of HIG Group are lying vacant in Jawahar Nagar and, on these plots, houses will be constructed in future and shall be allotted to influential persons and, thus, the petitioner will be deprived of his residential accommodation in Jawahar Nagar. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been allotted preference No. 77, but he has been discriminated in allotment of house, inasmuch as, persons, whose names appear below in the list of preference, have been allotted houses and many favourites of the State Government have also been allotted houses under the provision of amended Clause (a) of Regulation 8 of the Regulations. It is contended that the Board may be estopped from changing the locality and site of the house to be allotted to him, since under the scheme of 1973, he was to be allotted a house either in Jawaharnagar or in Lal Kothi Scheme. It isfurther contended that in Writ Petition No. 606/88 (Shivraj Singh Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), the Board has wrongly stated in its reply to the stay application and no house in HIG category is available in Jawaharnagar for allotment. It is also contended that allotment of houses in pursuance to Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations, on directions of the State Government, is highly arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and deserves to be quashed, as no such guidelines have been laid down for making such allotments. Such powers are not in consonance with the aims and objects of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1970') framed therein. It is pointed out that by introducing Regulation 9(a), great favouritism has been made, as such persons who are not in need of houses and other influential persons have been allotted houses. It is further pointed out that names of such persons, who have been allotted houses under the provisions of Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations, have been mentioned in Schedule I attached with the writ petition, which shows that houses have been allotted to persons, who do not deserve, nor were they proper persons to have been allotted houses under the provisions of Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations. It is also pointed that certain other names of influential persons have been named in the writ petition and that their allotments deserve to be cancelled.
4. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Additional Advocate-General, that it is evident from the Scheme of the Act, 1970 that the State Government has over-all control over the Board. Regulation 8 of the Regulations is regarding reservation of houses of allotment to any specified class or classes of persons. Subsequently, the State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 53 of the Act, 1970, amended the said Regulation 8 by adding Regulation 8(a) to the effect that allotment of 1% of the constructed houses shall be made as per directions of the State Government. It is further submitted that there is nothing arbitrary, discriminatory or illegal in the said amended Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations. This has been amended, keepingin view of the back ground of the Act, 1970. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the allotment made to any particular person under Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations and none of them has been made party to the writ petition. There can be no guidelines for all times to come and the petitioner could, at the most, have challenged any particular allotment of house to any particular person on the ground of arbitrariness/illegality etc. It is pointed out that this power is exercised by the highest officials, after carefully considering each case and there can be no abuse of power when the allotment is made by such top ranking officers. Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned counsed, pointed out that even though the petitioner did not deposit the required amount within the prescribed period and on his request for change of category, he was offered house, but he refused to have the same, as he insisted that he should be allotted house only in Jawahar Nagar. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had, in the first instance, got a house booked/reserved in Janta Group Category, for accommodation of one room. Subsequently, he applied to change his category to that of HIG Category. It is stated that a letter dated July 20, 1985 was issued by the Board due to mistake of office to change the category. It is also stated that, even though, the petitioner had not filed the income certificate so as to entitle himself to change the category to that of HIG and, even the required amount for change of category was deposited as late as September 12, 1988. Even if the letter dated November 5, 1986 (Anx. 4), sent by the Board to the Petitioner, was wrongly issued by the office of the Board, yet, until this date, he had not submitted the required income certificate for HIG category. This certificate has not been filed even thereafter. It is pointed out that as per letter of the Government of Rajasthan dated May 5, 1984 (Anx. RR/ 5), such persons, who had got their houses reserved in LIG/Janta Group Category, could change their category only to MIG ('B' Category). This circular further lays down that only such persons, who had initially reserved their houses in MIG ('B' Category), can apply for change to HIG category. Thus, the petitioner, who hadoriginally booked for only Janta Group/ LIG Category, could not have been given reservation for HIG Category. Therefore, the Board, vide its letter dated May 18,1989 (Ex. Rule 12/6), informed the petitioner that his category can be changed only to MIG ('B' Category) and if he was willing to have a house in MIG ('B' Category), he should give his consent in writing to the Board. He was further informed in the same letter that since his category could not have been changed to HIG, therefore, his option in respect of change to HIG Category has been cancelled. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was offered to accept the allotment of the house in Mansarovar Scheme, with a view to end the litigation, but he refused to have the same and insisted that he should be given house in Jawahar Nagar. It is submitted that in Jawahar Nagar, the Board has no houses for allotment. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner has refused to accept the house offered to him, there is now no lis between the petitioner and the Board and he has no right to file writ petition against the Board, which deserves to be dismissed, on this ground itself. It is also contended that there is nothing arbitrary/ illegal in Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations. It is submitted that the State Government is well within its power to give directions for allotment of houses to the extent of 1% and no fixed guidelines can be laid down, as circumstances and situations keep changing from time to time. It is further submitted that similar power is exercised by several other States in our country, including the Government of Maharashtra. The State Government has been authorised under Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Estate Management, Sale, Transfer and Exchange of Tenements) Regulations, 1981 to allot the houses to the extent of 2% to any person, as desired by the State Government.
5-6. It is submitted by Mr. Bapna, learned counsel, that Section 60 of the Act, 1970 empowers the Government to issue any directions to the Board, which, in its opinion, are necessary or expedient for carrying out purposes of this Act and it shall be duty of the Board to comply with the same. It is furthersubmitted that the applicant, on whose behalf the learned counsel is appearing, has not been made party to the writ petition, but a general prayer has been made to cancel all such allotments, hence he was allowed to address as intervener. It is also submitted that the Government has over-all control over working of the Board, therefore, there is nothing arbitrary or illegal in Regulation 8(a), which authorises only 1% of the houses to be allotted, at the instance of the Government of Rajasthan. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged even single allotment made sofar by the State Government and has only made general and baseless allegations. It is further pointed out that the Legislation could not provide for all future contingencies and there is no question of Board under Regulation 8(a) to be arbitrary, merely because no guidelines have been laid down for exercising the same.
7. We have heard the parties and gone through the documents on record. The Preamble of the Act, 1970 shows that it has been enacted for providing measures to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need of housing accommodation in the State of Rajasthan. Section 4 of the Act shows that the Board has been established by the State Government. Section 8 provides that remuneration to the Chairman and members shall be such as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. Section 34 provides that the Budget sanctioned by the Board shall be submitted to the State Government for its approval, which can return it to the Board for making such modifications, as State Government may deem fit. Sub-Section (2) of Section 40 provides that the Board may accept grants, subventions, donations and gifts from the Central Government or the State Government etc. Sub-Section (3) provides that the State Government may every year make a grant to the Board of a sum equivalent to the administrative expenses of the Board. Section 53 provides that the Board may, from time to time, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make Regulations consistent with this Act and with any Rules made under this Act for the purposes mentioned in the said Section. Sub-Section (2)of Section 53 provides that 'If it appears to the State Government that it is necessary or desirable for carrying out the purposes of this Act to make any regulation in respect of matters specified in Sub-Section (1) or to amend any regulation made under that sub-section, it may call upon the Board to make such regulation or amendment within such time as it may specify. If the Board fails to make such regulation or amendment within the time specified, the State Government may itself make such regulation or amendment and the regulation or the amendment so made shall be deemed to have been made by the Board under Sub-Section (1).' Section 60 authorises the Government to give such directions to the board as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act and it shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directions. From some of the provisions, mentioned above, it is evident that the State Government has over-all control over the working of the Board and it can give any direction to the Board as it may deem necessary from time to time. It is also clear that under Sub-Section (2) of Section 53, the State Government is authorised to make any Regulation or amend the Regulations as it may deem necessary and such amendments shall be deemed to have been made by the Board under Sub-Section (1) of Section 53 of the Act, 1970. The State Government has, therefore, power to make amendment of Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations, as has been done by the Government of Rajasthan vide Ex. RR/2. The petitioner has not made party to any of the allottees of the houses, who have been allotted the same under the provisions of Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations and has merely levelled allegations against them that these allotments have been made arbitrarily and the Government has shown undue favour to such allottees. As already stated above, the Government of Rajasthan has authority to make Regulations. Therefore, the question, which remains for consideration is whether the powers were exercised illegally or arbitrarily. It may be stated that Legislature or any Government cannot for all times to come lay down such guidelines, which may cover all the situations, which may arise from time to time.
The amended Regulation 8(a) is not a method for regular allotment of houses, but the houses are allotted when such need arises and that too to the extent of 1% only. For example, sometimes the Government may deem it appropriate to allot houses to such players of the State who bring the name of our country in Olympic Games; or other activities or the like. It is expected that scrutiny of such application shall be done by a high level committee who may examine the claim of such persons to avoid any element of arbitrariness, favouritism in the allotment of houses for this reserved category and the allotment should be in public interest without any political motivation. It is not the function of this Court to lay down the strict guidelines for all time to come and it is sufficient to refer the decision of the Apex Court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318: (52 Cri LJ 1361), in which, in para 23, it was held that 'a Legislature while legislating cannot foresee and provide for all future contingencies, and Section 52 does no more than enable the duly authorised officer to meet contingencies and deal with various situations as they may arise ...............'In Ram KrishnaDalmia v. Justice Tendoikar, AIR 1958 SC 538, it was held that there is always presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him, who attacks it to show that there has been transgression of the constitutional principles. It was further held that it must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. The Government of Rajasthan has, keeping this aspect of the matter in view, constituted a Committee of high level officers to consider each of the allotments to be made under the provisions of Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations. It may be pointed out that action or discretion of the Government in allotting house to a particular person under the provisions of Regulation 8(a) can be challenged, but we are of the opinion that there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory, so far as the powers conferred on the State Government are concerned, more so, as we have already seen, the State Government has over-all control over the Rajasthan Housing Board, which has to act on the directions of the Government, as may be given from time to time. The allotment is made by the high officials of the Government of Rajasthan, after considering each case on its merit. Such power is, therefore, not vested in any lower officials. In M/s. Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 397, while considering the provisions of Section 64(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, under which the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Central Board of Revenue have been authorised to transfer the case of a particular assessee from the ITO of the area within which he resides to any other Income-tax Officer, the Apex Court upheld the validity of the said provision and stated in para 21 that it may also be remembered that this power is vested not in minor officials, but in top ranking authorities, like Commissioner of Income-tax and Central Board of Revenue who act on the information supplied to them by the Income-tax Officers concerned. This power is discretionary and not necessarily discriminatory and abuse of power cannot be easily assumed where the discretion is vested in such high officials. The power to sanction the prosecution by the Government was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court.
8-9. It may be pointed out that while making allotment to any person under the provisions of Regulation 8(a), all other conditions of eligibility for allotment, as provided by Regulation 7 of the Regulations remained the same. Under Regulation 7 'a person shall be eligible for allotment of a dwelling unit, if he or his wife -- her husband or any of his dependant relations, including unmarried children, does not own in full or in part freehold or lease-hold passes of any residential plot or house in the city or town, where allotment is sought .............' These conditions have also to be fulfilled by such persons, who have been made allotments under the provisions of Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations. No other point was urged.
10. During the course of arguments, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel, again made offer thatthe Board is ready to allot a house to the petitioner in Mansarovar, but the learned counsel for the petitioner gave out that the petitioner is not willing to accept allotment of house in Mansarovar and will accept only when it is allotted in Jawahar Nagar. A further offer was made by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel, that there are three plots lying vacant in Jawahar Nagar and the petitioner can be considered for allotment of any of these houses as and when the same are constructed on these plots. The learned counsel for the petitioner declined this offer also. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is no arbitrary or discriminatory in Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations. As stated by the Board, there are no houses in Jawahar Nagar for allotment to the petitioner, who has refused in Court to accept allotment of the house offered by the Board in Mansarovar Scheme.
11. In the result, the writ petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.