Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bank Mitra Karamchari Group vs The Appel Tribunal J D A And O on 11 October, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12347/2009 Bank Mitra Karamchari Group Vs. Appellate Tribunal, JDA, Jaipur & Ors. Date Of Order :: 11.10.2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Imran Khan, for petitioner.
Instant petition is directed against the order passed by the JDA Tribunal dt.23.11.2006 disposing of appeals and the reference as well by common judgment but the present petition arises from appeal-137/2004.
The Jaipur Development Authority at one stage floated group housing scheme under which a group consisting of 21 to 1000 persons employed under the Central/State Government, Corporation, Board, Undertakings, Local Bodies, National Banks/Insurance Companies etc. were eligible to apply for plot of land in the scheme and as per the procedure prescribed plots are to be alloted to different housing groups on reserve price and accordingly advertisement (Annx.1) was published by the JDA inviting applications pursuant to the scheme floated for allotment and the last date for submitting the application form was 05.03.2004.
The petitioner also applied under the scheme and deposited requisite demand draft along with registration fee as required for participation which was accepted by the JDA and the lottery pursuant to the advertisement was to be drawn on 28.06.2004. It has come on record that in all 211 different groups had participated and those groups who were found to be successful allotments were made to each of them in accordance with terms & condition incorporated under the scheme floated by the JDA. Since the petitioner could not succeeded in the process which the JDA adopted, appeal came to be filed along with certain references regarding the process which the JDA adopted for allotment of plots to various housing groups under its scheme floated and primarily raised three questions for consideration (a)while initiating process of lottery Pseudo Random Generation Policy was not followed and it was manually operated which was in contravention of the terms of public notice. However, in the reply filed by the respondent JDA it was clarified that Pseudo Random Generation Policy was followed and to strengthen their submission system analyst of the authority also appeared before the Tribunal for providing procedure of Pseudo Random Generation Policy which was followed by the respondent while initiating the process of allotment of plots. The second objection raised was that certain other groups were also included who did not submit their application by the last date of submission in terms of the advertisement as such the procedure itself was arbitrary but there was no material placed on record to substantiate regarding such of the groups who were initially not included in the list and were lateron included and accordingly said contention was also rejected. The third contention advanced was that after the process of lottery was initiated the proceedings were withheld for at least one hour and initiation of process thereafter was wholly uncalled for. In reference thereto, it was averred in the reply filed by the respondent JDA before the Tribunal that after the process was initiated the group of salt department raised objection regarding its non-inclusion and immediately records were examined and after recording satisfaction permission was granted to group of salt department also for its participation and that consumed only sometime and this was the reason for which the further proceedings remained stayed for one hour. However, it was not the case of the petitioner that the proceedings were withheld for some ulterior motives and even otherwise no prejudice was caused to either of the participants merely on account of the fact after the proceedings were initiated its withholding for one hour caused prejudice to either of the applicant. Taking note thereof, the Tribunal did not find any error being committed in the decision making process which the respondent authority adopted in making allotment in terms of its advertisement and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order impugned dt.23.11.2006.
This Court has heard counsel for petitioner and gone through the order of the JDA Tribunal and does not find any manifest error being committed in the order impugned which may call for interference.
Counsel submits that his client has further instructed that the money which was initially deposited through cheque, it has not been refunded by the JDA.
If that being so, the petitioner is always at liberty to make representation to the competent authority of JDA and if made, it is expected from the authority to decide expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the observations made (supra), the petition stands dismissed.
(Ajay Rastogi),J.
VS Shekhawat/-p.4 12347cw09Oct11FnlDsps.doc