Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1176020/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11760 of 2008
=========================================================
KANDARPKUMAR
RAMANIKLAL BHATT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PINAKIN M RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
HUKUM SINGH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 25/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner challenges the Government resolution dated 10th
March, 2001 as well as reply dated 18th December, 2007
given by the Government and seeks a declaration that the petitioner
is eligible and entitled to get a residential plot at concessional
rate in the light of the earlier policies as well as the Government
resolution dated 10th February, 1999.
2. The
facts of the case stated briefly are that the State Government had
vide Government resolution dated 20th November, 1979
framed a policy for providing residential plots to employees in terms
of the conditions laid down therein. One of the conditions stipulated
was that the application should be made on or before 31st
March, 1988. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had not
made any application for allotment of the plot at concessional rate
at the relevant time. Subsequently, pursuant to representations made
by the Government employees, the Government came out with another
resolution dated 10th February, 1999, whereby the time
limit for making applications for allotment of plots was extended to
31st May, 1999. Pursuant to the said resolution, the
petitioner made an application dated 30th April, 1999 for
allotment of plot at subsidized rate within the time frame stipulated
under the said Government resolution. However, thereafter, no action
was taken on the said application made by the petitioner.
Subsequently, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 23rd
November, 2007 to the Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department for
processing his application.
3. Vide
communication dated 18th December, 2007, the petitioner
was informed that in view of the subsequent resolution dated 29th
March, 2001, all applications made pursuant to the resolution dated
10th February, 1999 had been treated as cancelled.
4. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner has moved the present petition challenging
the aforesaid Government resolution dated 29th March, 2001
as well as communication dated 18th December, 2007.
5. Heard
Mr. Pinakin M. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner.
6. It
is submitted that the impugned Government resolution dated 29th
March, 2001, whereby applications made pursuant to the Government
resolution dated 10th February, 1999 have been cancelled,
is violative of petitioner’s fundamental right to shelter under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner is
deprived of a shelter. It is submitted that in case of similarly
situated persons, the Government has already allotted plots at
concessional rates in the light of the Government Resolution dated
10th February, 1999. It is submitted that in the
circumstances, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to
allotment of residential plot at a concessional rate.
7. A
perusal of the averments made in the petition shows that except for a
bald averment that in identical cases, similarly situated persons
have been allotted plots at concessional rates in the light of the
Government Resolution dated 10th February, 1999, no
specific instances have been cited as to in which case, the
Government has in fact granted plots at concessional rates under the
said Government resolution.
8. Besides,
by Government resolution dated 29th March, 2001, the
Government had vide the said resolution framed a new policy for
allotment of plots without auction for residential purposes at
Gandhinagar to non-transferable employees at concessional rates and
taken a policy decision to cancel the Government resolution dated
10th February, 1999 as well as all the applications made
pursuant thereto. The learned advocate for the petitioner is not in
a position to show as to how the impugned Government resolution is
invalid or not in consonance with the provisions of any law or is
otherwise unconstitutional. In the circumstances, in absence of any
valid grounds for challenging the said resolution, no case is made
out insofar as the challenge to the said resolution is concerned.
9. As
regards the contention that the petitioner is deprived of his right
to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution, the same is
thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as allotment of plot on concessional
rates is an additional service benefit given to a Government servant.
In our country, where there are thousands of homeless and unemployed
persons, a right to allotment of a plot at concessional rates to a
well employed Government servant, certainly cannot be equated with
the right to shelter as envisaged under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
10. Insofar
as the challenge to the reply dated 18th December, 2007 is
concerned, the same is merely based upon the Government resolution
dated 29th March, 2001, in the circumstances, no infirmity
can be found in the decision of the Government.
11. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition being devoid of merits, is
summarily rejected.
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
shekhar/-
Top