ORDER
V.K. Bali, J.
1. This order of mine shall dispose of two Civil Writ Petition – C.W.P. No. 10849 of 1992 and C.W.P. No. 5732 of 1992, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.
2. The facts have, however, been-extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 10949 of 1992. Virender Singh and three others seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Haryana Urban Development Authority to allot them residential plots at Faridabad in consequence of being successful in draw of lots. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (herein after referred to as ‘the HUDA’), in the month of June, 1989 advertised some residential plots of different sizes in sector 46, Part I of Faridabad. Petitioners 1 and 2 applied for six marla plots in General category while petitioners 3 and 4 applied for four marlas plots in General category. They deposited earnest money alongwith application forms and were allotted registration numbers mentioned in para no. 2 of the writ petition. The allotment was to be made by draw of lots and the petitioners were declared successful in the draw of lots held on 17th March, 1990 and infact were allotted plot Nos. 702, 715, 855 and 887 respectively, in sector 46, Part-I, Faridabad. The result of draw of lots was published in the leading newspapers including the Tribune, dated April 2, 1990. Whereas the allotment letters were issued to the other successful candidates, the petitioners did not receive the same. This obviously necessitated enquiries to be made from the HUDA. They were informed by the Estate Officer HUDA that they should attend his office on 3rd July, 1990 in support of their eligibility for allotment of plots in BC Category. They were also directed to bring all the certificates which are required for the eligibility of the allotment of plot in the category of backward class as required in the advertisement. This was in regard to petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 2 was directed to bring certificate of Freedom Fighter, petitioner no. 3 to bring Certificate of War Widows while petitioner no. 4 to bring certificate of Defence. In response to this, the petitioners met the concerned authorities and pleaded before them that they had applied only against the general category and not against the reserved category and there was no question to bring the documents as mentioned by the Estate Officer. On 28th December, 1990, they were informed that they should collect the initial money that was deposited by them which entitled them to compete in the draw of lots. This was clear indication to the petitioners that no plot would be allotted to them. In wake of the circumstances herein mentioned above, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking for the relief as indicated in the earlier part of the order.
3. Dr. Balram Gupta and Mr. CM. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that once the petitioners were successful in the draw of lots and it was so intimated, there was no reason available whatsoever with the respondent-HUDA not be allot plots to them and to give it to others who were similarly situated. The action of the respondent-HUDA is thus stated to be arbitrary.
4. This petition has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been mainly pleaded that the application of the petitioners were received in different categories. The applications were assigned to M/S. Hartron Gurgaon for preparation of master-list, registration card, ready reckoner (category wise and size wise) etc.. The registration containing all the relevant information regarding registration number, application number, category of applicant, size of plot etc. Prepared by the said concern with the help of computer was mailed to each of the applicant including the petitioners. A sample of the registration card that was so sent, has been attached with the written statement as Annexure R.I. It is pleaded that the applications were under consideration against the particulars contained in the registration card. It was stipulated therein that if the particulars given in the registration card were incorrect the discrepancy should be brought to the notice of the Estate Officer, HUDA. It is further pleaded that the petitioners were not registered in the correct category i.e. the category for which they applied, but instead they were mistakenly registered in the category for which they were neither eligible nor applicants. In as much as the draw of lots of the petitioners was in wrong category i.e. the category to which they did not belong, there being successful in the draw of lots was wholly meaningless and when the mistake was detected, although after draw of lots, it was decided not to allot any plot to any of the petitioners. It has further been stated that enquiry was made and it came to the notice of the respondent HUDA that the petitioners were not of the category under which their case of draw of lots was considered.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I am of the of the considered view that cause of the petitioners is meritorious and the petition must succeed. The petitioners had applied in the category to which they belonged. Their application forms clearly indicate that they belong to a particular category.’ The fact that they had applied for the category to which they actually belong has not been denied by the respondents. If the petitioners are considered in the category to which they did not belong it was entirely on account of fault of the respondent-HUDA. May be, there was no mala fide involved in the matter and it was only pure accidental mistake that the petitioners were considered in the wrong category but the fact remains that the category to which they actually belonged, they were not considered at all. It is possible that if the petitioners were considered in the category to which they belong, they still might have been successful. Be that as it may the non-consideration of their names by the respondents in the correct category has resulted into the non-consideration of their case. The only course thus open to the respondents authorities, on detection of the mistake was to hold draw of lots denovo but that necessarily would have resulted into lot of harassment to those who had since been declared successful in the draw of lots. If the respondents did not choose the course as suggested above, then perhaps the only option open to them was to correct the category of the petitioners and to allot the plots that came to their share in the draw of lots. This court, in the circumstances that has been fully narrated above, has no choice but to direct the respondents authorities to choose the second course that was open to it i.e. to allot to the petitioners the plots that came to their share in the allotment of plots and to correct the category and make it to the one to which they actually belong. This Court, vide interim order while hearing the case on 25th January, 1994 directed the respondent-HUDA to produce on record the registration card that was sent to the petitioners as mentioned earlier. Annexure R. I attached to the. written statement is only pro forma. This course was adopted with a view of verify the plea of the respondent-HUDA that the petitioners even though issued registration card in the wrong category kept silent over the issue and did not object to the authorities at any given stage that they have been registered in wrong category. No record has been produced at the adjourned date. The very fact that instead of placing on record the registration card of the petitioners only proforma has been attached as also for the added reasons that the registration card has not been produced on the record even after the direction was given by this court, the presumption can legitimately be drawn that the same if produced would have been gone against the contention of the respondents. It is required to be mentioned here that the petitioners had categorically denied that they had received the registration cards. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that the petitioners were issued registration cards in wrong category and the petitioners kept silent over it, the authorities concerned i,e. the HUDA has also to equally share the blame. The Motion Bench, at the time of hearing on 29th September, 1992 had reserved one plot each for the petitioner and that necessarily means that the plots are lying vacant on which the petitioners can be accommodated. It is thus directed that the petitioners would be allotted one plot each which was reserved for them within one month. The conditions for allotment would be and remain the same as are mentioned in the advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioners made the applications. This petition is thus disposed of in the manner indicated above. No orders as to costs.