JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA,J - (1.) THE three petitions involve a common question - Have the respondents erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the allotment of flats on the ground that they had not made a deposit of 25% of the tentative value by the due date while submitting their applications ? Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in C.W.P. No. 1410 of 1998. These may be briefly noticed.
(2.) ON May 28, 1991 the Chandigarh Administration made a scheme for the allotment of land to Cooperative House Building Societies. In para 3 it was inter alia provided that the administration "may conduct survey to assess the demand by inviting applications on prescribed forms available from the Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board alongwith 25% of the premium of land to be applied for as earnest money and proof that the Society has sufficient funds and resources to pay the balance of the premium of land and to undertake construction work on the land if allotted to them through the .... Board". It was also provided that the survey shall not be construed as a commitment for allotment of land. The two petitioner Societies submitted their applications. However, in respect of some of the members the deposit was made only to the extent of 10% and not 25%. As a result, only the names of persons who had paid 25% were included in the survey and those who had not made the complete deposit were excluded. The petitioners have now approached this Court with the grievance that the members of the Societies were wrongly excluded. It is alleged that the scheme framed by the Administration had been challenged through C.W.P. No. 1454 of 1992. In this petition it had been inter alia directed that the candidature be considered on deposit of 10% of the sale consideration subject to the condition that in the event of the dismissal of the writ petition the applicants would be liable to pay "the balance 15% of the amount so as to make it 25% .. with a further interest at the rate of 18% per annum". According to the petitioners the members who had not paid 25% at the time of the initial submission of application should also be permitted to now pay the remaining 15% along with interest at the rate of 18%. Their request having not been accepted by the respondents, they have approached this Court through the present writ petitions. The petitioners maintain that the action of the respondents in refusing to accept this request is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, they pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to accept the remaining amount along with interest. Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It has been inter alia averred that the terms of the scheme are clear and categorical. The applicants were required to deposit 25%. Those who have not made the deposit were rightly excluded from consideration. They cannot now complain of discrimination. Thus, the respondents pray that the writ petition should be dismissed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard.;