BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner - Mansarovar Vyapar Vikas Samiti (for short 'the samiti') has preferred this writ petition to seek a direction on respondent No.2- Rajasthan Housing Board (for short 'the Board') for handing over possession of the land to the members of the samiti and, at the same time, to issue allotment letters to left out members. A further direction has been sought to release plan for construction of shops so that members of the petitioner samiti may raise construction on the land.
(2.) ON filing of reply by the respondents, an application for amendment was made, which was duly granted. With the amendment, additional prayer was made for setting aside enquiry report dated 26.5.2001 along with recommendations made therein. This matter pertains to allotment of land to members of the petitioner samiti. The samiti, vide its letter dated 2.5.2000 made a request to the Board to allot 150-200 shops to its members on commercial concessional/ reserve rate. Aforesaid request was made keeping in mind Operation Pink carried out by Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and the Jaipur Development Authority. As an out come of Operation Pink, unauthorised possession and operation of business was stopped. The samiti accordingly made a request to create a commercial place in Mansarovar area. The request so made by the samiti was taken into consideration by the Board, in its meeting dated 29.5.2000. It was decided that every applicant will furnish a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the Board. Allotment of shops was to be made at the rate of Rs.6100/- per square metre. A further meeting took place on 3.8.2000. Therein, it was decided that within a period of 15 days, the samiti will furnish list of its members and get registration by paying Rs.10,000/- each. It was further decided that after registration, entire amount would be deposited in the bank account of the Board by a demand draft within a month after registration. It was lastly resolved that in case samiti fails to deposit the amount in time then the Board would proceed to cancel the agreement for which, Chairman was authorised. The respondent Board thereafter made certain allotments in the month of September and so on. The controversy arose at the stage when possession of the land was not given and later on petitioner samiti could know about holding of enquiry at the instance of the State Government and recommendation for cancellation of the allotment. Accordingly, petitioner amended the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner samiti is a society registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. It got registration on 11.8.2000 vide Annex.1. The society was established with objects to take care of grievances of small traders, in particular, under Housing Board scheme and to create healthy atmosphere amongst traders in the area. To promote the object, petitioner samiti made a representation to the Board for allotment of shops for around 250 members. The Board was created pursuant to the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act of 1970) and, accordingly, it is obligatory on their part to relegate its business as per provisions of the Act of 1970. Section 26 of the Act of 1970 deals with the powers and duties of the Board to undertake housing schemes. Section 28 of the Act of 1970 deals with matter to be provided by housing scheme which includes Board's powers regarding sale, letting or exchange of any property comprised in the scheme. The disposal of property by Rajasthan Housing Board is to be as per the provisions of Disposal of Property Regulations, 1970 (for short 'the Regulations of 1970'). Regulation 3 provides that Regulations shall be administered by the Chairman of the Board subject to general guidance and resolution of the Board. The Chairman has been given powers to delegate its powers to any of its officer or officers. Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 1970 deals with execution of agreements whereas Regulation 5 deals with the disposal of property. Regulation 23 of the Regulations provides for constitution and functions of Property Allotment Committee. It is urged that Board had taken a cautious decision for allotment of shops to the members of petitioner samiti and it had processed the matter as per the provisions of the Act of 1970 and as per Regulations. The interference against allotment has been made at the instance of the State Government though powers of the State Government are quite limited as provided under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1970. The State Government initiated an enquiry into the matter and the Committee so constituted therein not only submitted enquiry report but gave its suggestions, which includes even cancellation of allotment. The action of the State Govt. is malicious and otherwise suffers from official bias. It so happened that on 27.9.2000 State Government wrote a letter to the Board for allotment of a plot to one Mr Bhagwan Das Gupta. The aforesaid reguest of the State Government was turned down by the Board The said Mr Gupta, being Dy Secretary of the Urban Development & Housing Department, was made Chairman of the enquiry committee. The outcome of the enquiry is nothing but annoyance of Mr Gupta, who was not bestowed favour by the Board. The allotment of land to the members of the samiti was not on throw away price, rather it was double the amount of reserve price. It is also a fact that the Board could not sale its 650 shops earlier thus it is on account of official bias that allotment of land is to be cancelled though allotment of land is at the rate of Rs.6100/- per square metre. This is more so when sale of land to a group is permissible under Regulation 29 thus even there was no illegality in taking decision for making allotment of land to a group. According to learned counsel for petitioner samiti, even if enquiry report is looked into, it is based on presumptions, inasmuch as the society never submitted proposal for establishment of cloth market, however, report makes a reference for establishment of cloth and readymade garment market. This itself shows that as to how the enquiry has been conducted by the respondent State Government. The enquiry cannot be conducted at the instance of the State Government in view of its limited powers under section 60 of the Act of 1970. The respondent Board is an autonomous body thus free to regulate its own business and the State Government has no jurisdiction to interfere in day-to-day business of the Board, however, ignoring aforesaid, enquiry has been conducted at the instance of the State government. The committee had even ignored the fact that Housing Commissioner of the Board was part of the decision process for allotment of land to the samiti thus could not have changed his own decision. Accordingly, enquiry report and recommendations made therein are totally illegal.
(3.) TO support contentions, learned counsel for petitioner cited various judgments. Referring to the judgment in case of Poonam Verma & Ors. vs. D.D.A. (2007(13) SCC 154), Bangalore Development Authority vs. Hanumaiah & ors (2005(12) SCC 508, KK Bhalla vs. State of MP & ors (2006(3) SCC 581 and U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors. vs. Maini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Limited & Ors. (1995(2) SCC 754, it is submitted that State Government cannot interfere in day-to-day business as held in the judgments so referred. Argument regarding application of promissory estoppel in regard to 86 members has been taken. These members said to have deposited full amount and entered into tripartite agreement with many financial institutions for loan. Reference of the judgment in the case of Sunil Pannalal Banthia vs. C & I D Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited & Anr. (2007(1) WLC (SC) 794) has been given. It is submitted that even in a contractual matter, writ can be maintained. This is more so when doctrine of severability applies in this case inasmuch as even if allotment was made to the minors or more than one allotments to one family, the respondents cannot undone the whole process even for others. Learned counsel for petitioner samiti lastly gave justification for entering into the agreement before registration of the samiti. It is submitted that a group can negotiate in the matter, more so when samiti got registration thereafter thus even if agreement with the society is prior to its registration, there is nothing wrong in it. ;