Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.P. Gupta And Others vs Administrator, Union Territory Of ... on 6 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR1994P&H87, AIR 1994 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 87, (1994) 1 SCT 229, (1993) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 611, (1993) 2 RENTLR 504, 1993 HRR 642, (1993) 2 PUN LR 706
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
ORDER S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The allotment of Government residential accommodation to Journalists or Press Correspondents, their entitlement to it and the legality thereof is what emerges as the main point in issue here.
2. In the matter of Government residential houses being allotted to Journalists or Press Correspondents, the Chandigarh Administration took a policy decision that, "the houses from all those Journalists/Press Correspondents who have attained the age of 60 years or transferred outside Chandigarh be got vacated in accordance with the policy/ rules which are applicable to other allottees. In case the Journalists/ Press Correspondents do not vacate the houses, eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, be started forthwith." This was conveyed to the Secretary. House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh by the letter of the Houme Secretary, Chandigarh Administration of September 6, 1990. It was in the context of the challenge to this policy decision by the petitioner S. P. Gupta, Accredited Correspondent of the "Danik Shivalik Sandesh", who had been allotted Government residential accommodation as far back as 1986 and had since crossed the age of 60 years, that the question regarding the very allotment of such accommodation to Journalists or Press Correspondents has been posed.
3. It would be pertinent to mention here (as brought out in the connected with petition) that it was on his retirement from the post of Joint Director Public Relations, Haryana, that the petitioner S. P. Gupta became an Accredited Press Correspondent and it was then in his status, as such, that he was allotted Government residential accommodation.
4. Denial of allotment of Government residential accommodation, in similar circumstances, constitutes the foundation of the grievance of Waryam Singh Dhotian, the petitioner in the connected with petition. He too had retired as Joint Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Punjab. While m service he had been allotted the house 262 in Sector 16A, Chandigarh. Almost a year after his retirement on January 31, 1990, he was accredited as a Press Correspondent of the Paper 'Kamal Netra' of Ludhiana, by the Press Accredition Committee of Haryana, at its meeting held on January 23, 1991. He thereafter applied for allotment of the house already in his occupation, now, of course, as a Press Correspondent. This request not having been acceded to, penal rent being demanded and the launching of eviction proceedings against him, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, is what led him to move this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
5. Turning now to consider ihe legality and entitlement for the allotment of Government residential accommodation to Journalists or Press Correspondents, what stands out in bold relief, is the absence of any rules or regulations governing the matter. Both the petitioners have, in this behalf, adverted to the proceedings of the meeting held on July 5, 1968, under the Chairmanship of Dr. M. S. Randhawa, the then Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh, to consider the the allotment of Government residential accommodation to Press Correspondents. The proceedings of this meeting are reproduced hereunder in extenso:
"Proceedings of the meeting held on 5-7-68 to consider the allotment of Government Residential Accommodation to Press Correspondents.
Present :
1. Dr.: M. S. Randhawa Chief Commissioner.
2. Shri Damodar Dass Home Secretary
3. Shri Daljit Singh Finance Secretary.
4. Shri Kulbir Sigh Chief Engineer, Capital.
5. Shri Niranjan Singh Deputy Director (Press), Punjab.
5(a) Shri G. L. Bhullar, Director, Public Relations, Haryana.
6. Shri A. K. Bhardwaj, Deputy Director (Press), Haryana.
The subject was considered in all its aspects and the following decisions were taken:--
1. In the case of correspondents who have been allotted houses in whose case the State Government concerned have given no assurance for payment of difference in economic and ordinary rent, the bill should be in the name of the allottee concerned at economic rent (F.R. 45-B). This principle will also apply to allottees whose rents are in arrears.
2. Requests for allotment of houses to other correspondents should be sponsored by the Administration to whom the correspondent is accredited. He should produce an assurance that the difference in economic and standard rent would be reimbursed by the Administration to whom he is accredited.
3. The category of the house to be allotted would be related to the pay of the allottee excluding the element of dearness allowance and it should be one category below.
4. Only correspondents who do not own a house or a residential plot in Chandigarh would be eligible for allotment. In case a correspondent who has been allotted Government accommodation acquired house of his, own, he will have to surrender his allotted house. If he acquires a residential plot, he will have to surrender the allotted house within one year of the purchase of the plot.
5. Fixation of quota of houses for Press Correspondents.
It was stated that in the erstwhile Punjab about 12 Correspondents had been allotted houses. Sixteen more allotments had been after reorganisation. The quota of houses for Correspondents is fixed at 33.
6. Criteria for future allotments.
a) Priority for allotment would be from the date of application.
b) No recommendation from a State Government for allotment would be accepted unless arrears of rent due from them are first cleared.
c) Only one house will be allotted to one news agency or newspapers.
Sd/- M. S. RANDHAWA Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh."
6. It will be seen that as per this decision the quota of houses for Press Correspondents had been fixed at 33, a number which has since been exceeded by almost three times, inasmuch, as according to the affidavit of the Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh, the number of houses already allotted to Journalists or Press Correspondents is 94. There is no material on record to show how, why and when any decision was taken raising the limit of the number of houses to be allotted to Journalists or Press Correspondents to this figure. To the pointed query put to the Standing Counsel for the Chandigarh Administration, in this behalf, no answer was forthcoming.
7. It was the plea of the petitioners that allotment of Government residential houses of Journalists or Press Correspondents was governed by the provisions of Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration Pool) Allotment Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Allotment Rules') while the Standing Counsel for the Chandigarh Administration, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, sought to trace the exercise of the power of allotment of such houses to Journalists or Press Correspondents, to Rule 26 thereof. Neither of these contentions can, however, stand scrutiny.
8. A plan reading of the Allotment Rules would show that they deal with and are concerned merely with the allotment of Government residential accommodation to Government servants. Journalists or Press Correspondents clearly do not come within their ambit.
9. As regards to Rule 26 of the Allotment Rules, this reads as under:--
"Relaxation of Rules-- S.R. 317-- A.M. 26-- The Chief Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax all or any of the provisions of these rules in the case of any Government servant or residence or class of Government servants or types of residence."
Here too, it will be seen that the power of relaxation contained therein is only concerning and with regard to Government servants and residences for them. Journalists and Press Correspondents cannot possibly be brought thereunder.
10. Such being the situation, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the allotment of Government residential accommodation to Journalists or Press Correspondents is not a matter covered either by the Allotment Rules or even by the power of relaxation contained in Rule 26 thereof. In other words, there are no rules, regulations or guidelines governing such allotment.
11. To elaborate further, there is also the glaring absence of any rules or guidelines to say what category of Journalists or Press Correspondents would be entitled to allotment of Government residential houses, if so, how many of them would be entitled, keeping in view the fact that there is another eligible and large category for such allotment, namely, Government servants. What is more, there are no rules or guidelines with regard to the category of the house too, that Journalists or Press Correspondents would be entitled and if so in what order.
12. The other aspect of it concerns the sponsoring State. As would have been noted from the proceedings of the meeting held on July 5, 1968, the sponsoring Government takes upon itself the financial liability of paying the difference between the economic and standard rent, for the houses that may be allotted to Journalists or Press Correspondents. Here too, neither the Advocate-General, Punjab nor the Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, could point to any criteria or basis for sponsoring names of Journalists or Press Correspondents to the Chandigarh Administration for allotment to them of Government residential accommodation.
13. In this day and age, with residential accommodation being so scarce and rents so high in Chandigarh, allotment of Government residential accommodation, in the circumstances, in which such allotments have been and are being made, at subsidised rents, cannot but be allotted upon as a bounty from Government and that too bestowed upon the chosen few, with no objective guidelines to govern the grant of it. Could favoritism or arbitrariness have asked for freer scope?
14. This state of affairs certainly lends credence to the Wag, who when asked what rules govern the allotment of Government residential accommodation to Journalists or Press Correspondents, replied, "Show me the face and I will tell you the rules."
15. What lies at the core of our constitutional structure is the principle of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness in Government action. In other words, under our system of law, arbitrariness has no place. A concept too well recognised even to be reiterated. To recall the oft quoted observations of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 (at page 1637) :
"It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc. must be confined and structured by rational relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown. By the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory."
16. In a similar vein, the highest Court of our land in M/s. Kasturi Lal v. State of J. & K., AIR 1980 SC 1992, observed (at page 1999) :
"Unlike a private individual, the State cannot act as it pleases in the matter ot giving largess. Though ordinarily a private individual would be guided by economic considerations of self-gain in any action taken by him, it is always open to him under the law to act contrary to his self-interest or to oblige another in entering into a contract or dealing with his properly. But the Government is not free to act as it likes in granting largess such as awarding a contract or selling or leasing out its property. Whatever be its activity, the Government is still the Government and is, subject to restrains inherent in its position in a democractic society. The constitutional power conferred on the Government cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner, it has to be exercised for the public good. Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must, therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touch-stone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid."
Further :
"Where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The governmental action must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance."
17. Finally, there is the statement from Wade's Administrative Law, 6th Edition, quoted with approval in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC 537, "The whole conception of unfettered discretion is inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good. "The Court observed that this principle operates wherever discretion is given for some public purpose adding further :
"Conferment of the power together with the discretion which goes with it to enable proper exercise of the power is coupled with the duty to shun arbitrariness in its exercise and to promote the object for which the power is conferred, which undoubtedly is public interest and not individual or private gain, whim or caprice of any individual. All persons entrusted with any such power have to bear in mind its necessary concomitant which alone justifies conferment of power under the rule of law".
18. Such being the settled position in law and the circumstances being as narrated, no other conclusion is possible except that, the allotment of Government residential accommodation, by the Chandigarh Administration, to Journalists and Press Correspondents, has been an exercise of unbridled power and discretion and cannot, therefore, be sustained. Journalists and Press Correspondents are not entitled to allotment of Government residential accommodation and consequently, it follows that all such allotments made, lack legal sanction and therefore, no further allotment be made to Journalists or Press Correspondents. The Chandigarh Administration would, no doubt, now take all the necessary consequential action in the matter.
19. In making this order, we are conscious of the fact that persons to be adversely affected by it, namely. Journalists and Press Correspondents, who have been allotted Government residential accommodation, are not before us. The issue raised being of general public importance could not, in our opinion, brook undue delay, which would inevitably have occurred if all the 90 odd allottees were to have been personally served. In order, however, to get their view point, in a representative capacity, we impleaded the Press Club of Chandigarh, which unfortunately came forth with no such view. Be that as it may, we leave it open to any aggrieved allottees to seek review of our order, if they can show any legal infirmity in it, warranting a different view being taken.
20. In the context of what has been held, no occasion survives to grant to the petitioners the relief claimed. At any rate, both the petitioners have vacated the houses allotted to them and neither of them appeared later either in person or through counsel to press their claim. Mr. R. S. Surjeweala, counsel for the petitioner Shri s. P. Gupta did appear but stated that he had no instructions. Be that as it may, the challenge of the petitioner Shri S. P. Gupta to the policy decision of the Chandigarh Administration regarding cancellation of the allotment of the allottees on attaining the age of 60 years or being transferred out of Chandigarh, stands rendered infructuous by the very entitlement of Journalists and Press Correspondents to allotment of Government residential accommodation being held to be contrary to law.
21. Similarly Waryam Singh Dhotian, the other petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of allotment not being made in his favour. As regards penal rent charged from him, he having continued in occupation beyond the permissible period, clearly rendered himself liable to it.
22. Before parting with this judgment, we must express our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us by Shri S. S. Nijjar, Senior Advocate, who had been appointed to advise us in this matter.
23. Both these writ petitions must, thus, stand dismissed. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.
24. Petition dismissed.