- (1.) The petitioner, who is a destitute widow having lost her young son residing on rent in a dilapidated house, and who had applied for a house under a scheme floated by Moradabad Development Authority in 1993 and having paid in that regard a sum of Rs. 48,000 in all as evident from Annexure-2, has come up with a prayer to quash the Office Note/D.O. dated 2-4-1998 as contained in Annexure-3, and allotment order dated 2/4-4-1998 as contained in Annexure-4, allotting House No. 5, Navin Nagar Aswaasiya Yojna pursuant to order dated 12-12-1996 passed by Respondent No. 1 and to command Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allot that house to her.
(2.) She asserts as follows :- As per the scheme as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition houses were to be allotted to4 persons belonging to general category on first come first served basis for which one was required to deposit 25% towards cost of the house along with his application and further 25% at the time of handing over possession of the house and remaining amount of 50% was required to be deposited in 48 equal instalments with an interest rate of 16% per annum within a span of four years plus 12% for freehold charges; she fulfilled all requirements and thereby was /is entitled to the house in question; even though she had made deposits but no action was taken by the Development Authority; she moved from pillar to post but without any result; in the meantime Respondent No. 2 allotted the house in question to Respondent No. 3 Smt. Shiksha Rani - wife of the gunner of the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority despite the fact that neither Respondent No. 3 nor is her husband an empolyee of the Development Authority concerned; and thus the allotment of the house in question is arbitrary and as a result of misuse of powers vested in the Authority.
(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which has been sworn by an Office Assistant of the Development Authority, the deposits made by the petitioner for the purposes of residential flat has been admitted. It has however, been asserted that merely because of the principle of first come first served the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment rather she is required to complete formalities; the allotment order of the disputed house was issued in compliance with the direction made by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division who is Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority; there has been no arbitrariness in allotment of the house in favour of Respondent No. 3; she has an alternative remedy for seeking redressal of her grievances from the civil Court; and that the writ petition is misconceived.;