Shri P. G. Gupta vs State Of Gujrat & Ors on 14 December, 1994
2.In these appeals, we are concerned onlywith regard to category Nos. (iii) and (vi).Admittedly, in
the Lower Income GroupHousing Scheme, 396 houses were constructed at Pahari at Ahmedabad
and were allotted to the government employees on rental basis. Subsequently, the State Government
had obtained sanction from the Central Government in May 1969 to convert the scheme into hire
purchase scheme and for allotment to the government employees on the criteria indicated therein, namely, continuous residence for five years and
also the eligibility criteria excluding the government servants who had already retired from service.
Thereafter on April 17, 197 1, the government passed a resolution converting 200 out of 396 houses
for allotment on hire purchase basis. On a further resolution dated June 22, 1972, all the 396 houses
were pooled for allotment on hire purchase scheme. In the offending resolution the allotment was
also sought to be given to category (iii), such of those employees working in Sachivalay (Secretariat)
and originally allotted the house at Pahari at Ahmedabad but later they shifted their residence and
they voluntarily vacated the houses and shifted to the houses allotted at Gandhi Nagar with better
accommodation on concessional basis. It was also sought to be given to such of those employees in
Category (vi) who had been transferred outside Ahmedabad on a permanent basis. The entitlement
under the scheme came to be challenged by some of the employees in the High Court. As stated
earlier, the High Court while upholding other criteria for other categories, quashed the entitlement
to the allotment to category (iii) and (vi). Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that initially when the Government of
India had given permission for converting these houses for allotment from rental scheme to hire
purchase basis, the requisite qualification of five years' stay therein was applicable. In view of the
compulsion by the State Government, the category III employees had shifted from Pahari to
Gandhinagar. Therefore, they cannot be deprived of their entitlement to allotment on hire purchase
basis.
4. Shri Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for category (vi), urges that the impugned
government resolution militates against the statutory regulation of allotment made pursuant to s.74
of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The government have, therefore, no
power under s.82 of the Act to pass any resolution contrary to the statutory regulations. It is also
contended that the lower income group housing scheme was initiated to benefit the people of lower
income group having an annual income of Rs.6,000/- to purchase the houses on hire purchase
scheme. The initial scheme to give benefit to the poorer employees has been given a go-bye hitting
hard the weaker segments among the employees and their rights and allotment on priority basis
was, therefore, defeated. The criteria adopted by the government are, therefore, irrational and
arbitrary and it has no nexus between the object of allotment on hire purchase basis and the policy.
The denial thereof to category (vi) employees violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is
also contended that though none has challenged the entitlement to allotment of category (vi)
employees, the High Court, after reserving the cases for consideration, had denied them the benefit
in the judgment. Therefore, the High Court has committed manifest error of law
5. Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the earned counsel for the
appellants, we are of the considered view that there is no force in any of them. It is true that initially
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1913799/
2