- (1.) According to the petitioner she is a teacher by profession. She is living alone since 1972 after her judicial separation from her husband. Due to certain personal reasons she wants to settle down at Kanpur and for the purpose she is in need of a residential accommodation in some housing scheme, preferably a scheme sponsored by the respondent No. 1. In furtherance thereof she made efforts and in this regard she also met the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh with an application praying therein that she may be allotted House No. HIG-L/884 Type 67/162 in Keshav Puram Yojna-I Kalyanpur Kanpur (for short the disputed accommodation). In her application she emphasized her difficulties and genuine need for having the particular accommodation allotted to her. The petitioner has further stated that the Chief Minister had appreciated her difficulties and therefore, under his direction his O.S.D. sent a letter to the Commissioner (Housing), U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (Kanpur Zone), Lucknow directing him to allot the disputed accommodation to the petitioner. The petitioner completed the necessary formalities and sent a letter to respondent No. 1 for allotment of the disputed accommodation in her name on compassionate ground which was duly considered by the Housing Commissioner and the disputed accommodation was allotted to the petitioner. As a consequence the said property was segregated and kept out of normal mode of allotment. A general allotment through lottery took place on 20.12.2006 and respondent No. 1 kept out the name of the petitioner as well as the disputed accommodation from the lottery draw. Thereafter the petitioner waited for some time for a formal approval of the Commissioner (Housing) in this regard. In the meantime respondent No. 3 intervened in the matter as he was interested that the disputed accommodation be allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were allotted through lottery flat No. L-410 and had applied for a change of their flat with the disputed accommodation. Due to illegal pressure exercised by respondent No. 3, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 succeeded in getting the disputed accommodation allotted in their names by way of exchange. As a consequence an order dated 22.2.2007 was passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Housing) through which it was directed that the disputed accommodation be allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned orders/letters dated 22.2.2007, 31.1.2007 and 3.1.2007 and writ of mandamus be also issued commanding respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue a letter of allotment of the disputed accommodation in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) The claim of the petitioner has been contested by all the 5 respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their counter-affidavit jointly whereas a joint counter-affidavit has been filed from the side of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Two rejoinder affidavits have also been filed from the side of the petitioner.
(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter called as the official respondents) have admitted that the petitioner got herself duly registered with them for allotment of a flat. This fact has not been disputed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter called as the private respondents) too. The official respondents have not denied the fact that the name of the petitioner and the disputed property was kept out of normal mode of allotment through lottery. It is also not denied that the draw of lottery had taken place on 20.12.2006 in which neither the petitioner had participated nor the disputed accommodation was put to the lottery draw. It is worth mentioning here that the records show that 24 flats were available for allotment regarding which draw was to be made and there were 116 registered applicants in the frey. The official respondents have further stated that the allotment of the disputed accommodation was pending approval of the Housing Commissioner, but it was never allotted to the petitioner under Regulation 48 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha Bhawano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pardeshan Sambhandhi Niyam, 1979 (for short 1979 Regulation), It has been further stated by the official respondents that it is well within the discretion of the Housing Commissioner to allot any residential plot or house in a Scheme of the Parishad in favour of an applicant, but there has been no allotment in favour of the petitioner by the Housing Commissioner and therefore the petitioner can not claim that the disputed accommodation was finally allotted to her. It has been further stated that the allotment of a house on 'compassionate ground' can not form a basis upon which the Housing Commissioner can exercise his discretion under the Regulations in favour of any person and in the instant case there were some more applications pending approval which were placed before the Housing Commissioner on 25.1.2007 and after due consideration the disputed accommodation was allotted to the private respondents. Referring to the Annexure 8 to the writ petition it has been submitted by the official respondents that it is merely a request for taking further action in accordance with law and the hope of the petitioner to get a house of her own choice cannot be equated as her right. It has been further stated that the private respondents had completed all the formalities regarding change of the flat allotted to them through process of lottery and the disputed flat was allotted to them on merits by the Housing Commissioner, considering all the aspects of the matter.;