Held: The Supreme Court held that the allotment of two “super deluxe” flats by the HUDA/HSVP employees’ welfare society (HEWO) was tainted by favouritism, lacked transparency, and violated the society’s own eligibility conditions, as a governing-body member was granted preferential allotment despite not satisfying the minimum deputation/eligibility requirement and despite applying after the stipulated deadline, and the allotment to his subordinate was sustained only by an impermissible post-facto regularisation that diluted the prescribed pay-level eligibility; such arbitrary exercise of authority could not be shielded by the plea of participation in the draw of lots, and judicial review under Article 226 was justified given the public-law elements in the society’s functioning and allotment process.
Summary: The appellant, a member of HEWO and eligible on the stated criteria, challenged allotment of two super deluxe flats contending that one flat was conceded to a governing-body member by preference in a manner that ignored eligibility and timelines and that the other flat was allotted to the governing-body member’s subordinate through a draw that was later “regularised” by relaxing the pay-level requirement, thereby disclosing bias, lack of transparency and abuse of position; the respondents argued that HEWO was a private society not amenable to writ jurisdiction, that allotments were in terms of governing-body decisions, and that the appellant, having participated in the process and lost, was estopped; the Supreme Court affirmed that Article 226 could be invoked given the governmental land allotment and the society’s public-facing, fiduciary character involving government employees and ex officio officers, found the High Court’s dismissal overly cursory, held that preferential allotment cannot override baseline eligibility, rejected post-facto dilution of eligibility to validate an ineligible allotment, and recorded strong disapproval of nepotism and self-aggrandizement in welfare housing allotments meant to operate on fairness and transparency.
Decision: The appeal was allowed; the High Court judgment was set aside; the allotments in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were quashed; the amounts deposited by them were directed to be refunded within one month without interest and they were directed to vacate the premises within one month of refund; HEWO was directed to conduct a fresh draw of lots for the two super deluxe flats from the eligible applicants available at the relevant earlier point of time after obtaining their consent, with a specific direction that if only one eligible person remains, one flat shall be allotted to the appellant with time to deposit the amount; exemplary costs were imposed on HEWO and on the beneficiary allottees with directions for payment/deposit within a stipulated period, with liberty to HEWO to recover the costs from responsible governing-body members after notice; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.