Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a mandamus against the respondents No. 1 and 2 that they be required to allot Flat No. 305 of Block No. 11/93 situate at P. I. T. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna belonging to the respondent Patna Regional Development Authority (in short "the PEDA").

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that on 15-7-2001 in dainik Jagran, a hindi daily news paper, the respondent PRDA advertised a public notice that on submission of requisite applications flats under the Self Financing Scheme shall be allotted on the principle of "First Come first Served." The petitioner submits that in response to the said advertisement (Annexure-1) he purchased the brochure from the PRDA and submitted his duly filled application with a Banker's cheque for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the PRDA at 11.10 A. M. According to the petitioner he being the first was entitled to the allotment but the respondents No. 1 and 2 made the allotment order on 22-12-2001 under Order No. 4812 in favour of the respondent No. 3 which is not only contrary to law but smacks of mala fide.

3. On the strength of the aforesaid it was contended before the Court that the petitioner was entitled to the allotment order but as the respondents No. 1 and 2 have acted illegally the order dated 22-12-2001 passed in favour of the respondent No. 3 be quashed and the PRDA be directed to allot the fiat in favour of the petitioner.

4. In the writ petition it has been contended that from Annexure-3 it would appear that an application for allotment should be accompanied by deposit of Rs. 15,000/ through a cross Bank Draft but from Annexure-4, yet another mode of allotment, such an amount could be deposited either by cross Bank Draft or Bankier's cheque, therefore, the petitioner even if had accompanied his application with the Banker's cheque, no fault can be found with the petitioner nor her application could be rejected on a technical ground.

6. On 15-4-2002 the counsel for the PRDA stated in the open Court that the Vice Chairman of the PRDA sought the opinion of the Chief Accounts Officer of the PRDA and after realising that there was no difference between the Bank Draft and the Banker's Cheque, he was proposing to issue notice to the erring Officers. It was also contended in the Court that the Vice Chairman. PRDA was proposing to issue notice to the respondent No. 3 to show cause as to why the allotment made in her favour be not cancelled.

7. However, in the counter affidavit dated 27-6-2002 it is contended by the PRDA that because of some confusion the counsel for the PRDA could not understand the instructions issued by the authority and made wrong statement in the Court. It is contended that while issuing brochure for allotment of the flat a specifc condition was made that the security money be deposited by a crossed Bank Draft and as the amount was not so deposited, the application of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. It is also contended in the counter that the deponent of the affidavit had discussed the issue in question with the Chief Accounts Officer of the PRDA but for confirmation, a letter of request was issued to the State Bank of India seeking certain guidance in the matter. According to the counter the chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Norya Lik complex, Patna opined that there is a marked distinction between the Banker's cheque and a Bank Draft. In view of the said submissions the respondents No. 1 and 2 have also contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed.