JUDGMENT
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the respondent in the writ petition, challenging the order dated 20.08.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 15908 of 2000 in and by which it was directed to allot a vacant plot to the petitioner who is the first respondent herein.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to this writ appeal, are as below:
2.1 The writ petitioner, a Conductor in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, applied to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (“the Board” for short) for allotment of a plot under the LIG II category and he was allotted a plot and he paid a sum of Rs. 10,125/- as directed which was duly acknowledged by the Board. Subsequently, he was informed by the Board that his allotment had been cancelled. Of course, the cancellation order was not served on him. Pursuant to the writ petitioner’s representation to the Chief Minister’s cell in this regard, he was informed by the second respondent that he had wrongly ticked the particular column in the application form, contrary to law.
2.2 The writ petitioner, aggrieved by the action of the Board in cancelling the allotment made to him even without giving any notice to him and without serving the cancellation order dated 10.06.1995 on him, filed the writ petition and the Board did not file any counter in the said writ petition. The argument advanced before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the Board is that though the writ petitioner had ticked column No. 5(i) indicating that he is an employee in the State Government or in an undertaking of the State Government, he had also wrongly made a “x” mark in column No. 5(ii) which is meant to indicate an employee under the Department of Health and Transport Corporation.
2.3 The learned Single Judge, holding that the writ petitioner had clearly specified his employer’s name as Dr. Ambedkar Transport Corporation, an undertaking of the State Government, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not made any wrong entry in the application form, by considering the various factors such as allotment of plot made to the writ petitioner, payment made by the writ petitioner in respect of the same and cancellation of such allotment even without any show cause notice to the writ petitioner or the allotment order being served on him and set aside the cancellation order dated 10.06.1995 passed by the Board besides imposing cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the Board. Further, since the plot originally allotted to the writ petitioner was re-allotted to some other person, the learned Single Judge, based on the particulars given by the writ petitioner, directed the Board to allot any one of the vacant plots to the writ petitioner within a period of one week from the date of the order. As against this order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed by the Board.
3. Heard Mr. K. Chelladurai, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr.G.Anbumani, learned Counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants, while assailing the direction of the learned Single Judge to allot any one of the vacant plots available to the writ petitioner which was based on the particulars provided by the writ petitioner, has contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the following:
a. The plot Nos. 3116 & 8690 under Phase-I are commercial sites of 1,034 sq. ft., each costing Rs. 4,91,150/- and the same cannot be allotted for residential purpose;
b. The plot No. 3669 under Phase-I had already been allotted to one Jayasingh Christopher even before the order of the learned Single Judge;
c. The plot No. 1365 measuring 969 sq. ft. under Phase-I is a commercial plot kept vacant for allotment under the category of convenience shop and costs Rs. 4,60,200/-;
d. The plot Nos. R31 and R33 under Phase-II come under the order of stay of this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 25108 of 2004 in W.P. No. 20876 of 2004.
5. The learned Counsel for the first respondent, per contra, has contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the impugned order passed by the Board considering that neither a notice was given to the writ petitioner before cancellation of allotment nor was the cancellation order served on him, despite the payment made by the writ petitioner as demanded by the Board.
6. We have given our heedful thought to the rival submissions of the learned Counsel on either side and have also perused the records available before this Court.
7. It is seen that the writ petitioner applied to the Board for allotment under the LIG II category and accordingly, the Board considered the application and allotted a plot bearing No. 1807 on 20.04.1994 under the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Programme, Ambattur Part I and LIG II scheme and directed the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,125/- and this direction was complied with by the writ petitioner. It is further seen that the allotment order dated 20.04.1994 has been cancelled by the Board without notice vide its order dated 10.06.1995 and it appears that the said order was not communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the second appellant, vide letter dated 09.02.2000 has informed the petitioner that his application was rejected since he had wrongly filled up the application form. This letter of the second appellant dated 09.02.2000 was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 7270 of 2000 and in the said writ petition, this Court had directed the appellants 1 and 2 to furnish a copy of the cancellation order dated 10.06.1995. Subsequently, challenging the cancellation order dated 10.06.1995, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 15908 of 2000 and the said writ petition was allowed on 20.08.2004 holding that the cancellation order dated 10.06.1995 was issued without issuing a show cause notice. Further, the learned Single Judge had directed the Board to find out the vacant plots in Phase I and II besides observing that the Board would not disclose any vacant plot in the scheme which will be a secret known only to the Board. It was further held by the learned Single Judge as under:
Be that as it may, there may be a few plots still not allotted and are vacant. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that there is no vacant plot in the scheme. But he mentions this only on telephonic conversation. Such a reply cannot be given by the learned Counsel. The advocate cannot take such a risk before the court of law. The authority should have filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no vacant plot available at present.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has given the following plots are vacant, I am of the view that these plots are vacant at present. Therefore, the respondents are directed to allot any one of the plots mentioned herein within a period of one week from today, failing which the matter will be taken serious note of by this Court. In view of the fact that the cancellation order is issued without issuing show cause notice, the writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the respondents 1 to 3.
Plot Nos. Phase – I 3116, 3669, 8690 and 1365
Plot Nos. Phase – II R-31 and R 33
8. It is relevant to note that subsequent to the stay of the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has filed a Vacate Stay Petition and when the said Vacate Stay Petition was taken up on 29.03.2007, the counsel for the Board was directed to file an additional affidavit giving particulars of allotment made in respect of plots mentioned in the impugned judgment, besides providing information with regard to vacant plots, if any.
9. In deference to the aforesaid direction of this Bench, the Board has filed its additional affidavit explaining its position as stated in paragraph 4 above. It has also been stated by the Board that the cost of the residential plot for Ambattur Phase I and Phase II is Rs. 750/- per sq. ft. whereas the upset price fixed for the commercial plot is approximately Rs. 1,450/- per sq. ft. It has been further stated in the additional affidavit filed by the Board that no residential plot is available in the Ambattur Phase I, II and III scheme and only 176 commercial plots are available in the said scheme for allotment through tender-cum-open auction.
10. When the Vacate Stay Petition was taken up once again on 10.04.2007, this Bench, by taking note of the writ petitioner’s alternative proposal dated 20.01.2005 which reads as under:
I agree for the allotment of commercial plot No. 3869 measuring 1033 sq. ft. under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Ambattur Scheme I and II as per the Court Order as fixed by the Board inclusive of interest as alternative plot.
directed the Board to state whether it is agreeable or not to allot plot No. 3869 as residential plot in favour of the writ petitioner and in the event of the Board not agreeing to the writ petitioner’s alternative proposal, it was directed to give the date of the proceedings, by which, the nature of the plot in question was changed from residential to commercial.
11. Pursuant to the above order of this Bench, the Board has filed its additional affidavit stating that it is not agreeable for the petitioner’s alternative proposal as plot No. 3869 was earmarked as a convenience shop in the original layout itself and the said plot was never changed to a commercial plot from residential plot and that the original allotment made to the petitioner was based on wrong furnishing of information by the petitioner and as such, the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of cancellation of allotment is liable to be set aside.
12. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the Board has not given any show cause notice as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and therefore, the cancellation order challenged in the writ petition is in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner and accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rightly taken cognizance of this aspect and allowed the writ petition and as such, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this writ appeal and the same is upheld.
13. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it is seen that the plot which the writ petitioner has offered to take as alternative plot appears to be a commercial plot and earmarked as convenience shop in the original layout itself. However, as the writ petitioner has already given a letter dated 20.01.2005 as stated above, with a view to enable the parties to arrive at a consensus in the issue, we are not inclined to harp on the point as to whether the plot was converted into a residential plot from commercial plot or vice versa more so, when the Board has now come out with the availability of the plot No. 3869.
14. In such view of the matter, in order to give a quietus to the matter, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal with the following directions:
a. the Board shall allot plot No. 3869 measuring 1033 sq. ft. under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme I and II at the rate which prevailed as on 20.01.2005 under the commercial rate and also calculate the subsequent interest thereon till the date of allotment.
b. Upon receipt of information as to above from the Board, the petitioner shall make payment of the amount as determined by the Board, besides complying with the other terms and conditions of allotment.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.