- (1.) These writ petitions have been filed, challenging the orders dated 22,2.2010 passed by the Managing Director of the Sate Housing Board (Board for short). As they involved common questions, they were heard together and are begin disposed of by this common order.
(2.) It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that after complying with due formalities, petitioners were allotted the premises in question by the Board and therefore, the impugned order, cancelling the allotment, could not have been passed; especially when petitioners were not at fault.
(3.) On the other hand, Mrs. Choudhary, appealing for the Board, supported the impugned orders. She submitted as follows. The petitioners filed writ petitions being W.P.C. Nos. 3184 of 2007 (Premjit Singh Siddhu); 3134 of 2007 (Wazid Hussain Khan); 3133 of 2007 (Tanveer Hussain)). which were disposed of together by order dated 16.6.2008, from which it would appear that as the petitioners raised ground of discrimination, the matter was remanded. Pursuant thereto such ground was considered and it was found that there has been no discrimination and that all the allotments, made by the then Executive Engineer, namely Arjun Prasad, has been cancelled, as he made allotments illegally and without following the procedure of law, and he had no power to make such allotment. The petitioners suppressed the fact that they filed suit for declaration that the agreements executed by Arjun Prasad is legal and valid, but the plaints of the said suits were rejected on 25.2.2002 in terms of Order VII, Rule 11A C.P.C., especially in view of order dated 16.6.2008, passed by this Court; and that no appeal has been filed against such dismissal of suits by the petitioners. Referring to the applications made by petitioners dated 14.8.2006 (Annexure-F), she pointed out that apparently the applications were not made in terms of the advertisement. For example, a draft of Rs. 500/- was to be deposited along with supporting documents. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners were innocent. It was further pointed out that the quarters, in. question, allotted to the petitioners, were earmarked for Scheduled Tribes, whereas none of the petitioners are Scheduled Tribes; and that such allotments were made immediately on application.;