IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6274 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ INDIRA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.LATE KOCHAZHAKAN, NOW RESIDING AT ILLATHUMUGAL, AISHWARYA NAGAR, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 021. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.RENI RASHEED SMT.D.MINI RAJAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, GOVT. PRESS P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-682 001. 2. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, COCHIN HOUSING UNIT, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, COCHIN-682 021. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 021. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682 011. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 021. 6. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 021. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM R3 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ................................................. W.P(C) NO.6274 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a destitute women. According to her, the 6th respondent is liable to classify her in the BPL category and on that basis she is entitled to get allotted a flat under the Innovative Housing Scheme of the Kerala State Housing Board at Kakkanad. It is stated that despite this, in Ext.P4 ration card, the 6th respondent has classified her under the APL category and therefore her legitimate rights are denied. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application to the 6th respondent to modify her classification and include her in the BPL category. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to allot her a residential accommodation. 2. According to the respondents 1 and 2, on whose behalf a statement has been filed in this case, 36 units were available for allotment and all the units are already allotted to W.P(C) NO.6274 OF 2011 2 persons mentioned in Ext.R2(b). It is stated that 18 persons are included in the waiting list mentioned in Ext.R2 (a). According to respondents 1 and 2, if the 6th respondent corrects the categorisation of the petitioner and include her in the BPL category, to which alone residential unit can be allotted, and if the relevant records are produced, they are willing to consider the eligibility of the petitioner and include her in the waiting list for allotment. 3. Admittedly only those, who belong to BPL category are eligible for allotment under the Innovative Housing Scheme referred above. As it stands today, the petitioner is included in APL category and hence is ineligible. The categorisation and the re-categorisation is a matter for the 6th respondent. It is therefore that, the petitioner has made Ext.P5 application before the 6th respondent for correcting Ext.P4 by re-categorising her in the BPL category and it is for the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P5 along with such other documents petitioner may produce and categorise her in the BPL category. W.P(C) NO.6274 OF 2011 3 4. It is directed that if orders re-categorising the petitioner in BPL category are passed, petitioner shall produce such documents before the 2nd respondent, who there upon, shall assess the eligibility of the petitioner for allotment of residential accommodation under the Innovative Housing Scheme. It is directed that on such assessment, if the petitioner is found to be eligible, her name will be included in the wait list maintained for allotment. 5. The counsel for the petitioner contented that existing allottees mentioned in Ext.R2(b) are ineligible, mainly for the reason that many of them hails from distant places. According to the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, migrant labourers from other places are eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Though this contention is now urged, such allottees are not impleaded in this writ petition. In the said circumstances, this Court will not be justified going into the merits of the said contention of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. W.P(C) NO.6274 OF 2011 4 6. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 6th respondent, before whom Ext.P5 has been filed, shall consider the same and pass orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within four weeks thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dmb