Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.SARADHA versus MANAGING DIRECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.Saradha v. Managing Director - Writ Appeal No.1714 of 2003 [2007] RD-TN 676 (26 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



Dated: 26.02.2007

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Writ Appeal No.1714 of 2003

and

W.A.M.P. No.1620 of 2006

C.Saradha ..Appellant Vs

1. The Managing Director,

Tamilnadu Housing Board,

Nandanam,

Madras 35.

2. The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Anna Nagar Division No.II,

Tamilnadu Housing Board,

Annanagar West,

Madras 101.

3. Government of Tamil Nadu,

rep. By its Secretary  Housing,

Fort St. George,

Chennai 600 009

(R3 impleaded as party respondent

vide order of court dated

20.11.2006 made in

W.A.M.P. No.1619 of 2006) ..Respondents Appeal against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated 04.04.2003, made in W.P. No.10442 of 2003. For Appellant : Mr.T.D.Selvan Babu For R 1 & R 2 : Mr.S.Kasikumar, for Mr.K.Chelladurai. For R 3 : Mr.K.Elango, Special Govt. Pleader. JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 04.04.2003, made in W.P. No.10442 of 2003, in and by which, the learned Judge, after finding no merit in the writ petition, dismissed same.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

3. It is not in dispute that, during the sale mela that was conducted by the Housing Board from 29.11.2002 to 02.12.2002, Plot LIG 159, Nolambur Phase II in Anna Nagar West, Mogappair, Madras, was offered to the Writ Petitioner. According to the petitioner, pursuant to her participation and offer, she deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 02.12.2002 and another sum of Rs.1,60,000/- on 13.12.2002 towards 25 of the value of the Plot. However, by letter dated 06.02.2003, the 2nd respondent herein informed the petitioner that the Government had not confirmed the sale of G.D.Q. (Government Discretionary Quota) Plot No. LIG-159 at Nolambur Phase II applied by her during the Sale Mela conducted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and requested her to return the enclosed refund voucher duly affixing two rupees revenue stamp signed and to surrender the original cash receipts issued by the Board so as to enable them to refund the amount paid by her. The said communication was challenged by filing the writ petition. The learned single Judge, accepting the stand of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board viz., that the said plot was allotted to the Government under Government Discretionary Quota and that, in the absence of confirmation by the Government, the Housing Board cannot accept the offer of the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, in view of the terms and conditions and in the absence of any specific information/intimation relating to the fact that the plot in question comes within the 15 discretionary quota of the Government, the action of the cannot be justified. He also contended that the petitioner is entitled to allotment order on the principle of 'legitimate expectation'.

5. We verified the terms and conditions of sale. It is true that there is no specific reservation/provision earmarking certain plots for allotment under Government Discretionary Quota. However, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board, by drawing our attention to G.O. Ms. No.961 Hg. & U.D. Dept. dated 03.12.1993 & Government Letter No.56081/HB.4(1)/94-2, dated 22.11.1996, submitted that the allotment committee of the Board is permitted to allot 85 of the plots/flats/houses of the schemes by drawing lots and the balance 15% of units is allotted by the Government under discretionary quota. The impugned letter mentions that the plot in question viz., LIG 159, has been included in the Government Discretionary Quota and that the Government has not confirmed the sale of the said Plot applied by the petitioner. Further, in the same letter, the petitioner was requested to surrender the original cash receipts enabling the Board to refund the amount. It is brought to our notice that, subsequent to the impugned letter, the Government by virtue of the discretionary quota, passed G.O.2D No.278, Housing and Urban Development (Ve.Va5(1) Department, dated 20.11.2003, allotting the said plot LIG 159 in favour of one P.Periasamy, a Social Worker, under 15% discretionary quota. Learned counsel for the Housing Board also produced a copy of the said Government Order. In the light of the same, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. It is brought to our notice that, even though in the impugned letter, the petitioner was asked to surrender the original cash receipts to enable the Housing Board to refund the amount paid by her, till date, she did not comply with the same. The writ appellant is permitted to surrender the original cash receipts to the 2nd respondent. Once the receipts are surrendered, respondents-1 and 2 are directed to refund the deposited amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. JI.

To

1. The Managing Director,

Tamilnadu Housing Board,

Nandanam,

Madras 35.

2. The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Anna Nagar Division No.II,

Tamilnadu Housing Board,

Annanagar West,

Madras 101.

3. The SecretaryHousing,

Fort St. George,

Chennai 9.

[PRV/9712]


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.