1 Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.76 OF 2009 Gaya Singh Yadav )..PETITIONER Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of Housing & Ors. )..RESPONDENTS Mr. M.A. Abdi i/b. Abdi & Co., for the Petitioner. Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for respondent No.1. Ms. K. Ankleshwaria, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. The petitioner by the present petition seeks to challenge the allotment of flats by MHADA, Respondent No.2. According to the petitioner reports have been appearing in the media that touts were moving around in the market assuring aspirants of the MHADA flats out of turn allotment on payment of on money. According to the petitioner on account of the fear and anxiety expressed by the members of the public MHADA issued statement to the Media that the allotment will be made without the taint and allegations of corruption and by computerized lottery. Computer draw took place on May 19, 2009. The petitioner failed to secure allotment, but got the refund of his application money within hours of the Computer 2 draw making him feel impressed with the new found efficiency of MHADA. The petitioner, however, was shocked and surprised to read a news item in the Times of India dated June 3, 2009 that allotments had not been made in a fair and reasonable manner even though the same had been via computer draw. The news item showed that some persons secured as much as three allotments including one Bollywood actor. The allotments were made at Lokhandwala complex Various other instances have been cited. The petition was thereafter amended to join the Controller & Auditor General of India and averments were made that the respondent No.4 had audited the accounts of MHADA for the years 2005-2006 in general and in particular the lottery system for distribution of tenements constructed by respondent No.2 to members of public. Respondent No.4 has severally criticized the lottery system of respondent No.2 including the software that was used. It is set out that the same faulty software was used in the May 19, 2009 lottery conducted by the respondent No.2 leading to grave injustice. The report has been placed on record by an affidavit in rejoinder. 2. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 by Shri Nagnath Narayan Chintamani, Director (Marketing). It is pointed out that the petitioner himself resides with his son in a MHADA flat which is allotted to his son in a similar lottery draw of MHADA in another scheme. The Scheme for computerization procedure adopted for the lottery draw, leaves no scope for error or manipulation. The software development for disposal by lottery draw of MHADA flats was made by Shanti Computers and Systems. It has been certified as to its correctness/quality assurance by National Institute of Industrial Engineering (Powai), NITIE (Powai), an Institute 3 under the Ministry of HRD, Government of India. The said software procedure is in operation for MHADA allotments with effect from June, 2006. The said software procedure for allotment of MHADA tenements is also audited by Tata Consultancy Service, who have also certified both the correctness and the quality assurance of the software, which states that the software system for lottery allotment is unbiased, the source code is fine, the lottery draw is unpredictable(i.e. There are no chances of any conscious selection of allottees), the programme is accessible only with one authorised CD which is kept sealed along with the pass word and registration Key in the custody of the Computer Cell of MHADA. The printed application forms along with the Brochure were sold through the 22 branches of HDFC Bank as per advertisement. The HDFC received the applications along with Earnest Money Deposit. A data-base was prepared by HDFC on the basis of the applications. Reliance is placed on the certificate issued by the HDFC. The data-base prepared by HDFC was checked by TCS was exhibited on the MHADA Web Site in order to enable the members of public to verify the details. Complaints received were promptly rectified and corrections were also shown. An Oversight Committee was also appointed by MHADA comprising of experts in the field of Computer Engineering and Administration. The Expert Committee consisted of Secretary/Information and Technology Department of the Government of Maharashtra, Dr. Deepak Pathak Chair Professor of Information and Technology Department of IIT/Powai and the retired Upa-Lokayukta, who is an IAS Officer, well versed in administrative matters. Pursuant to the appointment the Expert Committee shuffled the data base mentioned above and then sealed the same one day 4 before the actual lottery draw. The computer hardware was also sealed by the Committee and the possession and custody of the software and the hardware of the lottery drawn was at all relevant times entirely with the Expert Committee. It was opened on the next day by the Expert Committee itself. 3. The draw procedure commenced in the presence of the members of the Expert Committee including the applicants. The question of tempering and manipulating the software and the hardware and the shuffled data base for the lottery draw, therefore, could not arise. Various documents were attached along with the said affidavit. 4. In response to the reply rejoinder has been filed. An affidavit has also been filed by Dr. Deepak Phatak confirming the averments in para.3(a) and (b) of the affidavit made by MHADA. 5. Considering the facts on record no case has been made out by the petitioner whereby the reliability of the draw can be said to be tainted or faulty. We only clarify that audit findings were in respect of earlier years and communicated to the State Government. Considering the above, in our opinion, the petitioner has made out no case to interfere in this Public Interest Litigation which is devoid of any merits. Hence Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. ( R.V.MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.)