The Supreme Court has set aside the allotment of two super deluxe flats made by the HUDA Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO) to a governing body member and his subordinate, calling the process a “clear act of favouritism and blatant display of self-aggrandizement.”
Allowing the appeal, the Court held that “nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service, enabling housing facilities to its members by transparent allotment.”
The dispute arose over the allotment of two super deluxe flats by HEWO, a society comprising HUDA/HSVP employees. One flat was allotted to a governing body member on a preferential basis, while the other was granted to his subordinate through a draw of lots. The appellant challenged the allotments, alleging favouritism, bias and arbitrariness.
The Supreme Court found that the third respondent was not even eligible on the last date of application and had not fulfilled the minimum deputation requirement. The Court noted that the allotment letter was addressed by the third respondent “in his official capacity, to himself; in the individual capacity, making it a complete farce.” It held that there was “absolutely no reason to uphold the allotment” to him.
With respect to the fourth respondent, the Court observed that he did not satisfy the stipulated pay-band level at the relevant time and that his application bore glaring irregularities. The Bench remarked that the third respondent’s entry into HUDA “not only facilitated preferential allotment to himself but also to his subordinate”, and declined to uphold that allotment as well.
Setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment, the Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on HEWO out of which Rs.50,000/- would be given to the appellant as litigation expenses, and the balance shall be deposited with the Legal Services Committee of the Supreme Court. Further cost of ₹50,000 was imposed on the third respondent, and ₹25,000 on the fourth respondent. It directed refund of the deposited amounts to the allottees and ordered them to vacate the flats within one month of the refund.
The Court further directed HEWO to conduct a fresh draw of lots for the two flats from among the eligible applicants and clarified that, if only one eligible applicant remains, one flat shall be allotted to the appellant.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Mahima Benipuri, Adv. Mr. Rakshit, Adv. Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, AOR
Respondents- Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Harsh Mehla, Adv. Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Gupta, AOR
Ms. Sansriti Trivedi, Adv. Ms. Sarah Sunny, Adv. Ms. Suvarna Swain, Adv. Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Arora, Adv. Mr. Viraj Parakh, Adv. Mr. Adv Deepak Jindal, Adv.
M/s. Deshpandes And Mandliks, AOR
