ANUJ AGGARWAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 26.6.2007 (P-1), passed by the Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the respondent Board'), cancelling allotment of Second Floor flat under the Two Bed Room Flat Self Finance Housing Scheme-2006 in Sector 49, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Scheme'), which was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 19.7.2006 (P-3), on the ground that he was not found eligible for allotment under the Physically Challenged Persons Category due to non-fulfilling of Condition No. III (4) of the eligibility condition of the Scheme concerning age.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent Board floated the Scheme for allotment of 112 two bed room four storeyed flats in Sector 49, Chandigarh on freehold basis. The opening and closing dates of the Scheme were 31.1.2006 and 1.3.2006 respectively. As per condition No. 4 of the terms and conditions disclosed in the brochure, an applicant was required to be 18 years of age on the opening date of the Scheme. The petitioner through his father Shri Parmodh Kumar being his natural guardian, applied for allotment of flat by depositing Rs. 2.50 lacs (P-2) under Physically Challenged Person Category. In the draw of lots held on 17.4.2006, he was declared successful for allotment of a flat on the second floor. However, the Property Allotment Committee constituted by the respondent Board on scrutiny of the application form of the petitioner found certain discrepancies and in this regard a letter dated 19.7.2006 was issued in the name of the father of the petitioner asking him to remove personally the shortcomings/discrepancies upto 2.8.2006, failing which he was to be declared ineligible. At Sr. No. 17 of the discrepancies it was pointed out that the petitioner-Anuj Aggarwal did not complete 18 years of age and Guardianship certificate was not furnished. On 26.9.2006, the respondent Board again sent a letter pointing out that the Guardianship Certificate duly countersigned by the Secretary, Social Welfare, UT, Chandigarh, was not furnished (P-4). It is claimed that after receipt of aforementioned letter, the petitioner applied for issuance of Guardianship Certificate with the Nodal Officer, National Trust, Government Institute for Mentally Retarded Children, Chandigarh on 29.9.2006 (P-5).

(3.) BEFORE submitting reply to the show cause notice, the father of the petitioner sought information from the respondent Board under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as to whether any flat, house or booth has been allotted to a person who has applied for the allotment of a flat on behalf of physically handicapped person i.e. parents, guardian and other kith and kind in any scheme (P-9). The respondent Board while supplying the information, vide letter dated 23.11.2006 (P-10), in response to para 1 gave the following reply :-