- (1.) I. P. Vasishth, J. The petitioner prays for a writ ofmandanus commanding upon the opposite parties to allot him a residential house in Bareilly on priority basis in view of his 1980 registration.
(2.) IN 1979 the petitioner was a Com batant Flight Lieutenant in the INdian Air Force. IN response to a residential scheme floated by the respondents he got himself registered in the defence quota for allot ment of a plot at Bareilly. Later on he got it controverted for a HIG house. On deposit ing the requisite fee amounting to Rs. 7000/- he was allotted registration No. ER/h 80 per Annexure 1 attached with the petition. At the relevant time he was serv ing in forward areas with squadron 2201 and his address was C/o 56 APO for the obvious reasons he could not disclose the location of the squadron and so the cor respondence was made through his aforesaid squadron which, as a matter of fact, was based in the Run of Kutch. IN mid 1983 he was transferred from there to squadron 2315 based in another forward area (Punjab ). This transfer had to take effect from early December, 1983. During the interregnum when the petitioner was still attached with his earlier squadron based in Kutch, he got in touch with respondents and vide his letter Annexure 2 dated 7-11-1983, requested for change of his address as follows:- "fltlt. C. L. Anand, 2215 Sqdn. A. P. C/056apo. " As the petitioner had not yet moved out of the earlier squadron, therefore, in reply to the respondents' query dated 31-10-1983 he sent his consent letter dated 9-11-1993 contained in CA-A-II from there. However, during his joining time, he personally came down to Bareilly in November, 1993 itself and went to the respondents' office to ensure the correct recording of his changed address. They gave him the indulgence and that was how that the address was changed by the petitioner himself in the relevant Registration Book kept by the respon dents. But to his utter surprise and dismay, they did not send him any allotment letter at his correct address. At a later stage he came to know that house No. C-18 was allotted to him in the draw of lots on 16-11-1993 and an allotment letter dated 9-12-1983 was dispatched at his previous ad dress. For the obvious reasons he could not acknowledge any such allotment and thus the respondents cancelled the allot ment order on 29-5-1984 vide letter An nexure E (supplementary counter- af fidavit ). Since the petitioner had not received this allotment order and the can cellation had also been done without hear ing him, therefore, he protested to the respondents by sending his letter dated 13-7-1984 contained in Annexure E-4. But keeping in view the Defence traditional discipline and dignity, he did not unduly stretch the matter and requested for an alternative allotment of a particular plot situated in Yojna No. 2. In the same se quence on 12-11-1984 from the office of estate Officer of the respondents he ob tained true copy, contained in Annexure 3, of the aforesaid allotment order dated 9-12-1983. The petitioner's grievance was that house No. C-18 which was allotted to him from the defence quota was wrongly and illegally withdrawn by the respondents to accommodate and oblige some influential Person and that was the reason that despite is persistent correspondence from his post, both directly as well as through his command authorities, all proved futile. Ultimately on taking some leave from the service, he came down to Bareilly and per sonally discussed the issue with the then Commissioner, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The senior authorities were found reasonable and understanding and that was how that they offered him an alternative accommodation provided he got himself registered afresh.
(3.) THE petitioner's version was that since his registration was cancelled wrong ly, therefore, there was no need for him to obtain fresh registration. During this exer cise he came to know about the availability of a MIG house bearing No. B-47 with the respondents. He, therefore, requested for its allotment to him. Simultaneously on his letter contained in Annexure 13, the then Commissioner Sri Atul Gupta called for an office report about the mistake com mitted in sending the orders of allotment and cancellation at his previous address which had since been changed by him prior , to the incidence of allotment itself. But nothing concerate emerged out of the correspondence, or discussion etc. so he made a representation to the then Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh in July, 1992 vide Annexure 18 requesting for the allotment of House No. B-47 to him in the High Court of the aforesaid develop ments. This representation was followed by another representation dated 24-7-1992 contained in Annexure 5 attached with the supplementary counter-affidavit. On examining the entire issue the Chief Minister directed the respondents for taking appropriate necessary action. In view thereof the respondents called upon the petitioner to obtain and submit his incomes certificates. He duty complied with their demand by submitting income cartificate contained in Annexure B-l of the rejoinier affidavit. But once again the respondents took evasive stand by insist ing upon fresh registration. They also con tended that House No. B-47 could not be allotted to him as it was being used for official purpose and the only permissible mode of its allotment could be by way of public auction.;