1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3570/2005 Dr. Madhu Anand Agarwal Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. Date of Order :- 19.08.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.S.S. Hora, for the petitioner. Mr.K. Verma, Addl.G.A. for the State. Mr.Manoj Sharma, for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the arbitrary action of the Rajasthan Housing Board ('the Board', for short), respondent No.1 in rejecting her application for allotment of a house in the 'Raj Aangan Scheme', Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. According to the petitioner, on 11.06.2004 she had sent her application form for allotment of a house in the said scheme through courier mail. The said application form was duly received by the Board on 21.06.2004. However, vide order dated 27.08.2004, the Board rejected the petitioner's application ostensibly on the ground that there has been an increase in the prices for the house. The petitioner contends that the ground taken by the Board for rejecting her application is untenable. For, the rates were increased on 25.06.2004, whereas her application was received on 21.06.2004. 2 Therefore, the increased rate cannot be applied retrospectively. Moreover, in the case of Smt. Manju Goel, the Board had received her application on 21.01.2005 i.e. prior to the increase in the price. In the case of Smt. Manju Goel, the Board has alloted her a house on the basis of old price. Hence, the Board is committing a hostile discrimination against her. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Sharma, the learned counsel for the Board, has contended that since the application sent by the petitioner was incomplete, therefore, the Board had rejected her application. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 27.08.2004. A bare perusal of the order dated 27.08.2004 (Annex-R/3) clearly reveals that the petitioner's application was rejected not on the ground that her application was incomplete, but on the ground that the bungalow prices have increased. Therefore, the justification offered by the learned counsel for the Board is clearly untenable. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the petitioner's application was incomplete, the Board being a facet of the State, was legally bound to inform the petitioner about the fact that her application is incomplete. It was equally 3 bound to give time to the petitioner to complete her application. However, in the present case, even this minimum legal courtesy has not been shown by the Board to the petitioner. Since the petitioner's application was received by the Board on 21.06.2004, the Board is not entitled to demand the increased rate from the petitioner. Thus, it could not have rejected her application on the ground of increase in the revised rate. In fact, the petitioner's case is similar to the case of Smt. Manju Goel. Since the Board has already allotted a house in favour of Smt. Manju Goel on the basis of old rate, the same benefit should be given to the present petitioner as well. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed. The Board is directed to allot a house to the petitioner at the old rate within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki