Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a direction to allot a housing-board plot on the strength of a deceased grandfather’s old registration. Registration only enabled participation in the allotment process, and no successful allotment was established. The old registration had also ceased under the applicable Government Order. A statement that plots were available did not establish consent or an entitlement, and an official’s recommendation was not an allotment order by the Housing Commissioner.
Issues
- Whether old registration and nomination conferred a right to direct allotment without success in the prescribed process.
- Whether counsel’s statement about available plots or an endorsement on the application established binding consent or an allotment order.
Held
- The grandfather’s registration did not itself allot a plot; allotment required participation and success under the prescribed process. No such allotment was established, and the Government Order had ended the validity of the unsuccessful old registration. (¶ Order)
- Counsel’s statement that plots were available and the applicant could be adjusted did not constitute consent to grant the writ petition or remove the requirement of a legal entitlement and the prescribed procedure. (¶ Order)
- The endorsement on the application was a recommendation to the Joint Housing Commissioner, not a decision of the Housing Commissioner exercising the special power invoked. It therefore created no allotment right. (¶ Order)
- Direct allotment without an established entitlement would prejudice other eligible applicants awaiting allotment. The High Court supplied no cogent legal basis for its direction. (¶ Order)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s allotment direction set aside and the respondent’s writ petition dismissed.