Madras High Court
V.Karuna Priya vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of on 20 July, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.07.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.2518 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 V.Karuna Priya ... Petitioner Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Engineering Department, L.I.C.Building, 153, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent in Ref:-Engg/Hsg/114/Chennai dated 13.10.2007 and the order of the first respondent in proceedings No.Engg/Hsg/Chennai dated 23.04.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to allot one Flat to the petitioner herein in the Housing Scheme of Life Insurance Corporation of India in Padi Eri, Chennai. (Prayer amended as per order dated 21.08.2009 by SMKJ in M.P.No.1 of 2009) For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayana, Sr.Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents: Mr.Srinath Sridevan O R D E R
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the respondent LIC of India dated 13.10.2007. By the impugned order, a cheque of Rs.51,479/- was returned to the petitioner towards refund of Advance Registration Fees along with accrued interest @ 6% p.a., consequent upon the order of this Court made in W.P.Nos.8843 and 8827 of 2007 and the petitioner was requested to acknowledge the same.
2. When the writ petition came upon 31.01.2008, this Court permitted the petitioner to serve private notice on the respondent. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 01.02.2008. Though the matter was listed before a Division Bench on 15.02.2008, the Division Bench directed the matter to be listed before the Single Bench. Pending the writ petition, this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2008 directed the petitioner to apply to the respondent with a copy of LIC Policy for the allotment of the flat and on such event, the respondent was directed to consider the same.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P.No.1 of 2009, seeking to amend the prayer in the writ petition, calling for the records dated 13.10.2007 as well as the order of the respondent dated 23.04.2008 and seeks to set aside the same with a further direction to allot one Flat to the petitioner in the Housing Scheme of Life Insurance Corporation of India at Padi Eri, Chennai. That application was ordered by this Court on 21.08.2009.
4. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit dated 21.02.2008 was filed by the respondent. An additional counter affidavit was also filed on 10.12.2009.
5. The case of the petitioner was that Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) announced a Lucky Dip Scheme in respect of houses and the last date for submission of the applications and making deposit was 19.01.2007. The LIC sent a letter dated 11.04.2007 to the petitioner. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) was permitted to sell 225 grounds of land at Padi Eri, Anna Nagar, Western Exension, Chennai at a cost of Rs.2.55 crores to LIC. The said extent of 225 grounds lie in two parts in the same area but divided by another plot measuring 53 grounds. 53 grounds lies in between the two parts of the extent of 225 grounds. The said middle plot of 53 grounds was also sold to LIC. The market value of the plots were fully paid by the LIC and a single sale deed was executed in respect of 278 grounds and 1164 sq.feet.
6. The LIC advertised for applications from policy holders for allotment of 800 residential plots. The allotment and sale in respect of 800 flats were over except 33 flats which are yet to be sold. In respect of the remaining 53 grounds, the LIC invited applications for allotment of a flat at Padi Eri, Chennai through various newspapers on 19.11.2006. Pursuant to the advertisement, applications were received for the sale of 144 flats to be constructed in the remaining area of 53 grounds.
7. In the mean while, one of the applicant, P.Ganesan filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.8843 of 2007 challenging the advertisement on the ground that proposed flats should not be allotted to persons who are not LIC Policy holders. Similar writ petition was also filed by one Jeevan Bima Nagar Flat Owners Welfare Association in W.P.No.8827 of 2007. This Court granted interim injunction restraining the LIC in respect of the advertisement entitling the non-policy holders to avail the benefit. In view of the interim injunction dated 12.03.2007, the allotment proposals were put on hold. Subsequently, LIC filed an application to vacate the interim injunction in view of the fact that the construction of 144 flats being delayed and construction costs were escalating. Therefore, a settlement was arrived that the proposed 144 flats will not be allotted to non LIC Policy Holders as in the case of earlier allotment of residential flats constructed in 225 grounds. An undertaking was given before this Court that the proposed 144 flats to be constructed at Padi Eri will not be sold to persons who are not LIC Policy holders as on the date of application. Recording the undertaking, the said two writ petitions were disposed of. The advance registration fee of Rs.50,000/- was returned to all the 181 applicants who did not furnish particulars of the LIC Policy or attach the latest premium receipts with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
8.Subequently, flats were allotted by a scheme of draw of lots which was conducted by adhering scientific method in a transparent manner and there was no complaint regarding the draw of lots for the allotment of flats. The petitioner while submitting her application neither furnished any information regarding her LIC policy nor attached the latest premium paid receipt. Therefore, her name was not included in the draw of lots as it was done to all the 181 applicants, who have not given the LIC Policy details and they were treated as non LIC Policy Holders.
9. However,the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that she is a Policy Holder and she cannot be treated as non Policy Holder. She did not give the said information on the ground that it was not a required information. But there is a specific column in the application requiring the applicants to furnish the LIC Policy details. It also requires copies of latest premium paid receipt to be attached.
10. The petitioner remitted the advance registration fee of Rs.50,000/- on 19.01.2007. All the applications which did not contain the LIC Policy details were excluded and they were not considered for the draw of lots. The petitioner, what she could not achieve directly, by filing the present writ petition, indirectly trying to get such allotment. All the 134 flats which were available for sale have been allotted to eligible applicants and the process of collecting first instalment had been completed in respect of successful allottees.
11. In the additional counter affidavit, it was stated that the Application Form clearly started with the following words:- "Incomplete forms not accompanied by Advance Registration Fee are liable to be rejected.". Point No.2 of the Application Form specifically requires "Details of In-Force LIC Policy held by the Applicant" to be furnished. In the earlier writ petitions, LIC also gave an undertaking that they will not allot any of the proposed 144 flats to persons who are not LIC Policy Holders as on the date of the application. It was also stated that 82 applicants had left the column blank and it may be possible that they may be policy holders, but since they did not inform about the same in the application, they were also rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is not the only person who had been excluded. If the petitioner has to be given a flat on the basis of the quota reserved for Managing Director, then same treatment will have to be given to 81 applicants who were also got their applications rejected. A copy of the application submitted by the petitioner is also produced in the form of typed set. In the relevant column regarding "Details of In-Force LIC Policy, she had left the entire column blank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had fulfilled the criteria for considering her case against the policy holders quota.
12. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Parthiban, counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 [ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., and others] for contending that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable including to enforce the contractual obligation against State instrumentality by an aggrieved party. Reference was made to the following passage found in paragraph 27:-
"27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:
(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.
(b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable."
13. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 10 SCC 236 [Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa and another] for the very same purpose and he contended that State's conduct in all objects including a contract is expected to be fair and reasonable. It was not supposed to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. Reference was made to the following passage found in paragraph 32, which reads as follows:-
"32. We, however, having regard to ABL International Ltd.1 do not accept Dr. Dhavan's contention that only because there exists a disputed question of fact or an alternative remedy is available, the same by itself would be sufficient for the High Court to decline its jurisdiction."
14. Per contra, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the respondent LIC referred to the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Travancore Devaswom Board v. Panchami Pack Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2005 (1) KLT 690, wherein, the judgment in ABL International's case (cited supra) was considered and in paragraph 9, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"9. The other decisions relied upon by the respondent in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.3 and ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.4 relate to the power of the Court under Article 226 to entertain a matter even where disputed questions of fact are involved. The proposition is well settled. However, it is equally well settled that this Court normally does not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in refusing to entertain a petition under Article 226 on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved. In Harbanslal Sahnia case3 this Court indicated the exceptional circumstances in which the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, despite the existence of an alternative remedy. These have been stated in SCC p. 110, para 7 of the report where it is said that the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 in at least three contingencies even when an alternative remedy was available, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
15. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.Jayakumar v. A.Gopu and another reported in (2008) 9 SCC 403 for contending that if an application form has to be submitted with all particulars and if it is not done so, it can be rejected. The fact that subsequently condition can be complied with cannot be found acceptable. He relied on the following passage found in paragraph 12:-
"12. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in the selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light."
16. However, it is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the contractual right of the petitioner can be enforced in a writ petition, as the issue in this writ petition can be disposed of on the fact situation brought on record. When the LIC had given an undertaking that they will not consider non-policy holders, certainly, it would be open to them to reject the applications. When specific column has to be filled up by the applicant and if it has not been filled up, then later they cannot complaint that they are infact policy holders and therefore, LIC should give them opportunity. It was already stated in the application that the application should be complete shape in all respects. The petitioner has not only not filled the column relating to specifying the details of LIC Policy but also not provided any proof for latest premium receipt. When condition is imposed for fulfilment and if the same is not fulfilled, in the absence of any power of relaxation, the petitioner cannot have the benefit of such allotment.
17. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2403 [Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan and others]. In paragraph 28, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules... "
(Emphasis added)
18. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
.07.2012 Index:Yes/ Internet:Yes/ svki To The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Engineering Department, L.I.C.Building, 153, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
K.CHANDRU,J.
Svki Order in W.P.No.2518 of 2008 20.07.2012