IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P.No.7844 OF 2008 S. Senthilkumar .. Petitioner -vs- 1 STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2 THE TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR NANDHANAM, CHENNAI- 35 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CUM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER , VELLORE HOUSING UNIT, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SATHUVACHERI VELLORE. .. Respondents Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(1D) No. 76 Housing and Urban Development (HD5(1) Department dated 8.1.2008 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to determine the value of the Plot No. S-1 Arakkonam Housing Scheme so as to enable the petitioner to remit the same. For Petitioner: : Mr. G. Jeremiah For Respondents: : Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Govt. Advocate – R1 Mr. A. Vijayakumar - R2 ORDER This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(1D) No. 76 Housing and Urban Development (HD5 (1) Department dated 8.1.2008 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to determine the value of the Plot No. S-1 Arakkonam Housing Scheme so as to enable the petitioner to remit the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. By G.O.2D No.324, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 15.12.2004, the petitioner was allotted one plot in the Arakkonam Housing Scheme. To fix the cost, certain directions were issued to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/ second respondent for allotment of plots to the allotees concerned. The second respondent, by his letter dated 4.1.2005 called upon the third respondent to comply with all the requirements specified by the various Government Orders and allot the plot to the individuals subject to the conditions applicable for allotment. The petitioner on 12.10.2005, wrote a letter to the third respondent requesting him to fix the value for the plot allotted to him for which, the third respondent in his letter dated 26.10.2005 informed the petitioner as follows:- @ ghhit . j';fs; fojk; ehs; 12/10/2005/ ghh;itapy; fz;l fojj;jpd;ghy; j';fs; md;ghd ftdk; <h;f;fg;gLfpwJ/ j';fSf;F muR K:yk; xJf;fPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;s tzpf kid vz;v!;/1 f;F tpiy eph;zak; bra;J mDg;g[k;go thhpaj;jpw;F fojk; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/ thhpaj;jpypUe;J tpiy eph;zak; bra;J cj;jut [ tH';fg;gltpy;iy/ thhpaj;jpypUe;J tpiy eph;zak; bra;J bgw;wt[ld; j';fSf;F bjhptpf;fg;gLk; vd;W bjhtpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/@ 3. In effect, the third respondent stated that as and when the price is fixed, it will be duly intimated. The petitioner made further requests on 7.7.2006, 28.2.007 and 11.4.2007, which were duly acknowledged by the third respondent. The third respondent on 19.9.2007 by letter No.A1/380/05 informed the second respondent that the price of the plot has not been fixed in spite of repeated requests and reminders of the petitioner and requested the second respondent to fix the price immediately. While the matter stood thus, on 8.1.2008, the secretary to Government passed the impugned Government Order, which reads as follows:- The Government in their order 1st read above have allotted Plot No.S-1, at Arakkonam to Thiru S.Senthilkumar, Arakkonam. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has not fixed the cost of this plot and therefore he has not issued the consequential orders to the allottee. Hence, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has recommended that in view of non fixation of cost to the plot even though it was allotted under Government Discretionary Quota, the Government have to cancel the order. 2. The Government after careful consideration accept the recommendation of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and cancel the allotment of plot No.S-1, at Arakonam, made in favour of Thiru S. Senthilkumar, Arakonam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board is therefore directed to take further action." (emphasis supplied). 4. The main reason for cancellation of the allotment is on the ground that the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board/ the second respondent has not fixed the cost of the plot and therefore, the Government is cancelling the allotment. The present writ petition has been filed stating that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter diligently with the third respondent and the third respondent has also forwarded the letter to the second respondent for fixation of the price of the plot. As there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, the cancellation based on recommendation of the Managing Director is arbitrary. 5. Due to inaction on the part of the second respondent, the impugned Government Order came to be passed. The impugned order does not state that the petitioner was guilty of delay or lack of diligence. The delay is attributed to the respondent as is evident from the correspondence. 6. The respondents have been noticed and no counter has been filed so far. In any event, on going through the impugned order, it is apparent that the impugned Government Order cancelling the allotment is only on account of non-fixation of cost of the plot by the second respondent for which, the petitioner cannot be found fault with. 7. Having failed to do his duty in fixing the land costs, the second respondent's action in recommending the cancellation of plot allotted to the petitioner appears to be an arbitrary exercise of power. On the one hand, he declined to fix the cost of the plot in spite of repeated reminders from the third respondent and at the same time, recommends for cancellation of allotment of the plot. This clearly shows malafides and arbitrariness. 8. In view of the arbitrary action on the part of the second respondent in refusing to comply with the directions as per the first G.O.2D 324, Housing and Urban Development (HB 51) Department, dated 15.12.2004, the recommendations of the second respondent for cancellation, which is the basis for cancellation of the allotment, on the face of it, appears to be erroneous. Therefore, the impugner Government order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 9. Mr. Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate submits that at present there is no Government discretionary quota. In this case, the Government Order, which was originally passed allotting certain plots to the individuals was not given effect to and no consideration was paid by the petitioner to the Board. It was at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the stage of fixation of price. That issue can be considered on its own merits by the Government in the event of the petitioner claiming any benefit under the G.O.2D 324, Housing and Urban Development (HB 51) Department, dated 15.12.2004 in the light of the First Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.No..634 to 642 of 2009 and W.A.No. 402 of 2009. 10. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., STATE OF TAMILNADU HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD NANDHANAM, CHENNAI- 35 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CUM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER , VELLORE HOUSING UNIT, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SATHUVACHERI VELLORE. 1 cc to Mr.G.Jeremiah, Advocate, Sr.No.13676 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.14204 1 cc to Mr.A.Vijayakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.13809 WP No. 7844/2008 TAM {CO} TP/6.4.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/