The Supreme Court on February 17 cancelled the allotment of two super deluxe flats made by a Haryana government employees’ housing society. The Court held that the process reflected nepotism and abuse of position.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Dinesh Kumar. It set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order, which had refused to interfere.
The Court observed:
“Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service…”
It described the allotment exercise as opaque and termed it “a clear act of favouritism and blatant display of self-aggrandizement.”
Background
Dinesh Kumar, a member of the HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO), challenged the allotment. Two high-end super deluxe flats became available after earlier memberships were cancelled.
Instead of conducting a transparent draw of lots, the governing body opted for preferential allotment.
One flat was first allotted in May 2021 to the presiding Governing Body member. He later surrendered it after demitting office.
The third respondent took charge as Chief Controller of Finance, HUDA on August 12, 2021. By virtue of that position, he became a Governing Body member of HEWO. On September 13, 2021, he sought allotment of the cancelled flat. The governing body promptly approved it.
Ineligibility of Third Respondent
The Court found that June 18, 2021 was the last date for submitting applications and depositing earnest money. On that date, the third respondent was neither a HUDA employee nor a Governing Body member.
He had not applied within time. He had not deposited membership fees or earnest money.
The Court also noted that he addressed the allotment communication to himself in his official capacity. It described this as making the process a “complete farce.”
The Bench observed:
“We observe at the risk of repetition that on the last date of application the third respondent was not even an employee of HUDA or a governing body member of HEWO… We find absolutely no reason to uphold the allotment made to the third respondent which is a clear act of favouritism and blatant display of self-aggrandizement.”
It further recorded that even on the date of allotment, the third respondent had not deposited membership fees, let alone filed an application with earnest money.
Allotment to Subordinate Also Invalid
The second flat went to the fourth respondent through a draw of lots. He worked as an Accountant in the office headed by the third respondent.
The Court found that he did not fall within the stipulated pay band criteria. Therefore, he was ineligible.
It also noted defects in his application. The form did not mention the date, place, or demand draft details evidencing earnest money payment.
The Bench held that the third respondent’s entry into HUDA facilitated preferential allotment to himself and his subordinate.
“We find no reason to uphold the allotment to the fourth respondent also,” the Court stated.
Directions and Costs
Calling the conduct a “blatant display of favouritism,” the Court imposed:
- ₹1 lakh costs on HEWO
- ₹50,000 on the third respondent
- ₹25,000 on the fourth respondent
The Court directed the beneficiaries to vacate the flats after receiving refunds. It also ordered HEWO to conduct a fresh draw of lots strictly among eligible applicants.
The appeal was allowed.
Cause Title
Dinesh Kumar Versus The State of Haryana and Ors.
Appearance
For the Petitioner:
Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Advocate; Ms. Mahima Benipuri, Advocate; Mr. Rakshit, Advocate; Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, AOR.
For Respondent Nos. 1 & 5:
Mr. Alok Sangwan, Senior A.A.G.; Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR; Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Advocate; Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Sabarni Som, Advocate; Mr. Gaj Singh, Advocate; Mr. Harsh Mehla, Advocate; Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2:
Mr. Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocate; Mr. Bharat Gupta, AOR; Ms. Sansriti Trivedi, Advocate; Ms. Sarah Sunny, Advocate; Ms. Suvarna Swain, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3:
Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR; Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Arora, Advocate; Mr. Viraj Parakh, Advocate; Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4:
M/s. Deshpandes and Mandliks, AOR.
