- (1.) PETITIONER in this application has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.3.2006 (annexure 7) whereby and where -under the claim of the petitioner for allotment of residential quarter on a long term lease (LTL) basis has been rejected by the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the respondent HEC and was allotted a residential quarter No. CD 18 at Sector III, Dhurwa, Ranchi. On 14.1.2004, the respondent company issued an advertisement vide Circular No. 2/2004 offering allotment of residential quarters to its employees on long term lease basis. In response thereto, the petitioner applied for allotment and on 28th May, 2004 and deposited Rs. 3,10, 200/ -by way of premium payable for allotment of a ground floor quarter. The respondent Management offered him quarter no. CD 15/8. Though the offer of the quarter was accepted by the petitioner but the delivery of possession of the quarter was not given by the respondents to him. Instead, the Management allotted the quarter to the occupant who was in forcible occupation of the said quarter. Later, on being informed that CD 403/III at Sector III has fallen vacant after the earlier occupant had vacated the quarter, the petitioner submitted his representation seeking delivery of possession of the aforesaid quarter. Though by letters dated 29.11.2005 and 30.12.2005 (Annexures 5 series) the concerned authorities of the respondents assured the petitioner of allotment of the said quarter, but again the assurance was not fulfilled and the quarter was allotted to some other person. Instead, the Management offered another quarter no. CD 559 at Sector III. It was conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent Management that if the petitioner accepts the offer of quarter no. CD/559, then the allotment would be given to him soon after the stay granted by the High Court in another writ petition is vacated. By his letter dated 29.3.2006(annexure 6) the petitioner accepted the offer for allotment of quarter no. CD 559. Yet, instead of allotting the quarter to the petitioner, the respondents by their impugned order dated 30.3.2006 (annexure 6) rejected the petitioners claim for allotment of the quarter and directed him to collect his premium amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that he having accepted the offer of the respondent Management for allotment of a residential quarter on LTL basis and in token of such acceptance, having deposited the premium amount of Rs. 3,10,200/ -, the contract is deemed to have concluded by and between the petitioner and the Management and the respondent Management is bound to offer the quarter to the petitioner, but the respondent Company has now retracted from its obligation under the contract on account of the fact that by reason of a revised decision of the Management, the amount of premium has been enhanced from Rs. 3,10,200/ -to Rs. 4,90,000/ -and it is only to obtain unjustified financial benefit and with malafide motives that the allotment of the quarters has now been denied to him. Such denial of allotment of the quarter to the petitioner is totally discriminatory, unjustifiable and smacks of an ulterior motive. Further, grievance of the petitioner is that ever since the date of the deposit of the premium amount on 28.5.2004 which he had withdrawn from his GPF account and the house rent allowance he has been suffering loss on interest on the amount and further more, he is now being threatened with forcible eviction of the quarter in his occupation and his retiral dues have also been illegally withheld by the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Management denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that though vide letter dated 8. 5.2004, (annexure 2) the respondent Management had provisionally allotted Quarter no CD No. 15 /8 on long term lease of 30 years, extendable to 90 years, in stages of 30 years each, to the petitioner, on the terms that the petitioner should deposit the fixed premium amount of Rs. 3,10,200/ -within the stipulated date; the offer itself was conditional and it was categorically stated in the letter that if due to "unforeseen circumstances  and even after the deposit of the premium amount if the quarter is not physically handed over to the petitioner, then the premium amount will be refunded to him without interest and no alternative quarter will be provided to him in lieu of the offered quarter. The said quarter at the relevant time was in occupation of one S.K. Pandey. It is further contended that even though the petitioner had deposited the premium amount after accepting the offer of the aforesaid quarter, but since even to the petitioners knowledge, the quarter was in occupation of another person, the allotment of the quarter could not be completed in favour of the petitioner by delivery of the possession of the same to him. As regards the petitioners claim that the respondent Management had offered Quarter no. CD 559/III, the stand of the respondents is that the respondents had never offered the aforesaid quarter No. CD 559/III to the petitioner under the LTL scheme. Learned counsel for the respondents would explain that as matter of fact, the petitioner being an employee of the company, was allowed to occupy quarter No. CD. 18/III on normal allotment basis. The petitioner by his letter dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure 5) had expressed his physical inconvenience for residing in the allotted quarter no. CD 18/III situated on the top floor of the building and had requested for change of the quarter and had desired for allotment of CD 403/III in exchange. In response, the concerned authority of the respondents had informed the petitioner that his request for allotment of quarter No CD. 403/III has been rejected by the allotment committee, although the committee had decided to allot CD 559 /III to the petitioner. Learned counsel explains further that though in the letter ( annexure 6), the Manager (Estate) of the respondent Company had conveyed to the petitioner that long term lease scheme was not in operation on account of the stay order passed by the High Court and that on vacation of the stay order, the said CD 559/III shall be regularized to the petitioner under the LTL scheme if it is declared under the LTL zone, but such communication was totally without authority vested in the Manager by the Management and hence, it does not create any right in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further that though the stay order of the High Court has since been vacated, but since CD 559/III did not fall under the LTL zone, the same cannot be offered to any person much less the petitioner under the said scheme.
(3.) FROM the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are: (i) In response to the advertisement issued by the respondent Management for allotment of residential quarters to its employees under LTL Scheme, the petitioner had submitted his application in acceptance of the offer by fulfilling the requisite conditions namely deposit of the premium amount of Rs. 3,10,2000/ -for allotment of a ground floor quarter on 28.4.2004. (ii) The respondent Management had offered CD 15 /8 to the petitioner on long term lease basis. However, the possession of the allotted quarter was not delivered to the petitioner on the ground that it was under occupation of some other person. (iii) Subsequently, by letter (annexure 6), the Management had initially offered to allot quarter No. CD 559/III to the petitioner by way of normal allotment in exchange of the quarter which was already in his occupation, but with the assurance that such allotment would be regularized under long term lease if declared under LTL zone after vacation of the stay order of the High Court. (iv) The petitioner accepted this offer by his letter dated 29.3.2006. Subsequently, the stay imposed by the High Court in another writ petition was vacated. Thereafter, vide a fresh advertisement dated 12.6.2006 the respondent Management had offered several quarters, including CD 559/III, for allotment under LTL scheme and allotted the said quarter to one P.P. Vijay on 21.7. 2006. This fact has not been denied by the respondents. ;