- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation dated 22.12.2009, passed by the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter 'RHB'), whereby the allotment of a MIG-A category flat, bearing No.263/380 in Self Finance Scheme of the RHB has been cancelled for reason of the petitioner having failed to comply with the payment schedule set out in the letter of selection for allotment issued on 16.01.2008 and the demand notice subsequently issued on 27.02.2009 on allotment of house No.263/380 in the Pratap Nagar Scheme.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner, on an application made, was selected for allotment of a MIG-A category house in the Self Finance Scheme of RHB under its letter dated 16.01.2008, which also set out the installments payable and the dates on which they were to be paid. It was made clear that the amount of Rs.15,50,000/- indicated as consideration for the allotment was only tentative and the petitioner would be informed of the actual cost on the date of allotment, whereupon she would be required to pay the remainder amount. That it appears that the petitioner, after paying the first installment of Rs.3,13,040/- after a delay of six months on 20.08.2008, failed to pay remainder installments as per the schedule set out in the letter of allotment dated 16.01.2008. In pursuance to the letter dated 16.01.2008, subsequently vide letter dated 27.02.2009, the petitioner was in a lottery conducted for the purpose was alloted house No.263/380 in MIG-A category of RHB's Self Finance Scheme whereby the cost of the house was fixed at Rs.17,41,605/-. RHB thereupon issued a demand notice to the petitioner on 27.02.2009 to pay the remainder sum of Rs.13,79,810/- within one month. The petitioner appears to have however submitted a letter of request for extension of period for depositing the amount as demanded by RHB under its letter dated 27.02.2009 by two months but however did not deposit the amount due even after the expiry of two months. Thereupon, RHB issued a notice dated 22.12.2009, published in the Rajasthan Patrika Edition, directed to defaulters including the petitioner, in which it was clearly mentioned that all the allottees, including the petitioner, who had not yet deposited the required due amount on allotment of a MIG home in the Board's Self Finance Scheme, Mansarovar, could deposit the due amount within fifteen days from the date of publication of the advertisement and produce the receipt of the same in the office of RHB, failing which the allotment / registration would be cancelled without any further notice to the allottees. However, in spite of the notice dated 27.02.2009 and the notice published in the newspaper, the petitioner did not deposit the required amount and therefore the RHB had no option except to cancel the allotment of flat to the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2009. From the facts on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was unresponsive to his obligations to adhere to the schedule of payment fixed by the RHB under its letter dated 16.01.2008 and RHB's demand notice dated 27.02.2009 in spite of several opportunities. RHB had been extremely indulgent with the petitioner till it had little option left except to cancel allotment under its order dated 22.12.2009. Whereupon the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition fundamentally agitating grounds of equity on the basis of irrelevant facts. The ground for the delay in the payment of the due amount to the RHB has been vaguely attributed to the death of the brother of the petitioner's husband on 13.12.2008. The ground is quite obviously vacuous as the petitioner was required to pay the amounts in issue under RHB's letter dated 16.01.2008 between 20.02.2008 and 28.11.2008 and vide demand notice dated 27.02.2009 within one month of the demand notice. Thereafter the RHB waited for a period of about nine months during which the petitioner was notified even by way of a public advertisement, in leading vernacular newspaper published in Rajasthan. The petitioner however continued to default on his contractual obligation and in these circumstances, nothing unfair, illegal or arbitrary can be attributed to RHB in the cancellation of flat allotted to the petitioner on 22.12.2009.
(3.) IT however transpires from the file of the case that on the petitioner approaching this Court, by way of an ad-interim ex-parte order dated 20.04.2010, this Court was pleased to direct that the order of cancellation dated 22.12.2009 would remain stayed and the respondent-RHB "may serve fresh demand of amount payable along with interest and other dues if any permissible, within fifteen days " and the petitioner would then deposit the amount demanded by the RHB within one month thereafter. It was further recorded that the deposit of the petitioner on any fresh demand made by the RHB would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.;