Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana

2026 INSC 163 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No………...of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.16057 of 2025)

Dinesh Kumar ….Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and Ors. ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a

democratic system, more so when it happens within a society

comprising members of the government service, enabling housing

facilities to its members by transparent allotment. The second

respondent HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning

Employees Welfare Organization (for short, ‘HEWO’) is one such

society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The

enactment provides for establishment of societies for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey promotion of literature, science, fine arts, diffusion of useful Date: 2026.02.17 17:09:12 IST Reason:

knowledge, diffusion of political education and for charitable

Page 1 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 purposes, as the preamble proclaims. Obviously, HEWO is

constituted for a charitable purpose, especially on the principle

that charity begins at home, to benefit its own members by

allotment of housing facilities. In the present case, we are

concerned with the allotment of two super deluxe flats in the

apartment complex built by HEWO.

3. The appellant herein admitted to the membership of HEWO,

is eligible by way of his 14 years of deputation in the Haryana

Urban Development Authority (for short, ‘HUDA’) which is

alternatively referred to in the vernacular as Haryana Shehri Vikas

Pradhikaran (for short, ‘HSVP’). One of the flats available was

conceded to a governing body member, the third respondent

based on a decision taken by HEWO in the year 2020 and in the

picking of lots conducted for the one remaining flat, the fourth

respondent turned out to be successful. The appellant challenged

the allotment of the super deluxe flats to the third and fourth

respondents, alleging them to be ineligible and accusing HEWO of

favoritism, to both its governing body member, the third

respondent and his subordinate, the fourth respondent.

4. The respondents, HEWO and the beneficiaries resisted the

writ petition first on the ground of Article 226 not being capable of

Page 2 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 invocation, the society being a private entity, not subject to

governmental control, thus taking it out of the definition of State

under Article 12 of the Constitution. The allotments were asserted

to be in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the

society and the exception carved out was urged to be

unexceptionable for reason of it being a common place practice as

decided by the Governing Body in the past. The third respondent

was a governing body member so enabled preference by the

earlier decision, and the fourth respondent satisfied the basic pay

requirement, which alone was the consideration as per the

decision of the Governing Body. The appellant had participated

and lost and hence, could not challenge the allotment was the

defense.

5. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

after setting out the facts and the respective contentions found

invocation of Article 226 to be proper. Especially when lack of

transparency and violation of fairness and reasonableness was

raised, considering the fact that the land stands allotted by the

Government and the privilege conferred upon the members of the

society to seek allotment of housing facilities. Though no argument

was raised by the respondents on this count, for completeness it

Page 3 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 has to be observed that we perfectly agree with the said findings

of the High Court. Noticing additionally that the members were all

government employees, specifically the persons who were in the

employment of the HUDA or who were on deputation having a

minimum service of six months in the department, to whom

preferential allotment was made of flats constructed by HEWO was

allotted. The Governing Body of the Society also comprises ex

officio members, holding responsible positions in the department

and the government. Though, ex officio, while sitting in the

Governing Body by virtue of their offices, they cannot individually

or collectively digress from the essential duties entrusted upon

them. As responsible officers of the Government, the Governing

Body members in that capacity too, should act in a fiduciary

capacity for the common good, ensuring fairness, transparency

and accountability, while eschewing favouritism, bias and

arbitrariness. That having been said, with respect to the allegation

raised by the appellant, we are constrained to observe that the

Division Bench rather cursorily held that since the allotment made

earlier to a governing body member was surrendered, the same

was allotted to respondent No.3 and that Respondent No.4 was

Page 4 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 granted allotment on the draw of lots, in which the appellant also

participated, he becomes estopped from challenging the same.

6. Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant took strong exception to the cursory dismissal of the

petition, especially without looking at the facts projected which

clearly proved an arbitrary exercise of power and there was bias

writ large in the allotments to respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent No.2, sought to uphold the allotments and the

impugned judgment, as did Mr. Alok Sangwan, learned Sr. A.A.G.

for the State of Haryana and Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande learned

counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

8. We first look at the rules and regulations of the society

produced as a miscellaneous document on behalf of respondent

No.3, on 03.02.2026. The aims and objectives clearly indicate

formulation of social welfare schemes to help, serving and retired

employees of HUDA, subsidiaries of HUDA and personnel of

HEWO, which functions are to be carried out as a non-profit

organization. The ex officio members of the Governing Body, as

we noticed earlier are the persons holding responsible positions

in HUDA, government officers from various levels, on deputation.

Page 5 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 The membership of the HEWO is open to serving and retired

employees of HUDA, spouses of deceased HUDA employees,

employees of the subsidiaries of HUDA, personnel of HEWO and

employees deputed to HUDA who have a minimum six months

service on deputation.

9. Now, we will look at the specific allotment made which was

proposed at the governing body meeting on 21.01.2021 produced

as Annexure P-5. Among others, two super deluxe flats were made

available by reason of cancellation of memberships. It was

decided that applications be invited against the cancelled

memberships as per the decision of the governing body meeting

dated 16.10.2020 and 22.10.2020, the applicable portions of which

are extracted in a tabular form. It speaks of new membership

being granted through draw of lots to the eligible persons having

minimum six months of service to his or her credit and any

membership available on cancellation or surrender, being

capable of allotment on preference to a governing body member.

Immediately we should notice that such preferential allotment

cannot be made, even if it be made to a governing body member,

who does not satisfy the eligibility criteria of membership, which

would then be violative of the bye-laws of the Society.

Page 6 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025

10. By Annexure P-6 dated 13.04.2021, the decision of the

Governing Body was notified providing for applications on the

prescribed format with earnest money deposit, to be submitted by

17.05.2021, also specifying that no further extension would be

granted. The stipulation of eligibility was, as in the bye laws and

insofar as the super deluxe flats, the basic pay limit was fixed at

Rs.56,000/- and coming within level 10 to 20 of the pay band. A

subsequent notice was issued, extending the last date up to

18.06.2021 as decided on 12.05.2021 by Annexure P-7, due to the

pandemic situation.

11. Before the completion of time stipulated on 25.05.2021, the

meeting of the governing body members, with one Mr. K. Makrand

Pandurang presiding, allotted one of the super deluxe flats to the

said presiding member. The balance flat was decided to be floated

amongst the eligible employees of HUDA. Admittedly, the

appellant applied under the advertisement and was eligible on all

counts, satisfying both the deputation period, the basic pay

requirements as also being in level 11 of the pay band.

12. The third respondent took charge as the Chief Controller of

Finance, HUDA on 12.08.2021 and Mr. K. Makrand Pandurang

Page 7 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 sought cancellation of his membership and allotment, by a letter

dated 08.09.2021, Annexure P-12.

13. Normally, this should also then have been conceded to the

draw of lots. By Annexure P-13, the third respondent on 13.09.2021

sought for allotment of the cancelled flat, which was accepted and

resolved, in the meeting of the governing body of HEWO on

19.09.2021, produced as Annexure P-14. Hence, as on the date of

the application of the governing body member, the last date for

application and earnest money deposit, was over. But the allotment

was proceeded with and the HEWO allotted the super deluxe flat

to the third respondent by a letter dated 17.09.2021 produced by

Respondent No.2 through its application dated 28.01.2016, as

Annexure A-1. Annexure A1 is a communication addressed by the

3rd respondent; in his official capacity, to himself; in the individual

capacity, making it a complete farce. The said letter calls upon the

3rd respondent to remit the application fee, membership fee,

earnest money, the land cost and the first to tenth instalments;

collectively demanded since obviously no application was made

within time. Hence, as on the date of allotment, there was not even

the membership fees deposited by the 3rd respondent, leave alone

Page 8 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 the submission of an application along with earnest money deposit,

before the last date.

14. We observe at the risk of repetition that on the last date of

application the third respondent was not even an employee of

HUDA or a governing body member of HEWO. The third

respondent took charge as per Annexure P-11 on 12.08.2021 in

HUDA, by virtue of which he became a governing body member of

HEWO. There could have been no preferential allotment given to

the governing body member who was not even satisfying the six

months deputation period in the service of HUDA. We find

absolutely no reason to uphold the allotment made to the third

respondent which is a clear act of favouritism and blatant display

of self-aggrandizement.

15. The fourth respondent admittedly had 18 years’ service as is

seen from the application made, for membership of that

respondent, produced along with Annexure 4 series by

respondent No.2 along with its application dated 03.02.2026.

However, as admitted by the second respondent, the 4th

respondent though satisfying the basic pay requirement, was not

between the pay band level stipulated, an exception having been

carved out by the decision of the Governing Body on 25.07.2023,

Page 9 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 produced as Annexure P-18. The specific complaint made by the

appellant herein was referred to and it was held that since only four

out of the seven applicants satisfied the pay-band-level

requirement, the allotment in the draw held on 02.05.2023 be

treated as regularised.

16. We fail to understand how the draw of lots would be stultified

or frustrated by reason only of only four members being available,

especially since the allotment by draw of lots was for one single

super deluxe flat, the other having been conceded to the

governing body member, which we have interfered with as of now.

There is no stipulation either in the decision of the governing body

or in the rules and regulations that there should be a specific

number of applicants for a determinate number of flats. The

ineligibility of applicant No.4 is stark and obvious, and we also

have doubts with respect to the application made, being on time,

as is revealed from Series No.8 in Annexure P-4. On the application

of the fourth respondent, there is no date or place indicated, nor is

there any date or details of the demand draft, evidencing payment

of earnest money indicated therein. The fourth respondent is

obviously working as an Accountant with the office of the Chief

Controller of Finance, HUDA, Panchkula as indicated in the

Page 10 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025 application, which office is held by the third respondent. The third

respondent’s entry to HUDA and as a consequence to HEWO thus,

not only facilitated preferential allotment to himself but also to his

subordinate. We find no reason to uphold the allotment to the

fourth respondent also.

17. Considering the gross abuse of powers and authority carried

out in the above case, we are inclined to set aside the judgment of

the Division Bench of the High Court and allow the appeal imposing

costs of Rs.1 lakh on the second respondent with further costs of

Rs.50,000/- on the third respondent and costs of Rs.25,000/- on the

fourth respondent. The second respondent shall pay Rs.50,000/- to

the appellant as litigation expenses and the balance shall be

deposited with the Legal Services Committee of the Supreme

Court, with whom the third and fourth respondents also shall

deposit the costs imposed on them, within a period of two months

from today. We make it clear that the costs imposed on the second

respondent would be capable of recovery from the governing

body members, except the 3rd respondent on whom we have

separately imposed costs, which the second respondent would be

entitled to proceed with after issuing notice to the members of the

Governing Body, who took the decision for allotment.

Page 11 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025

18. We further make it clear that the entire amounts deposited by

the third and fourth respondents shall be refunded to them within

a period of one month without any interest and they shall vacate

the premises within one month of the refund. The second

respondent shall carry out a fresh draw of lots with respect to the

two super deluxe flats from the four eligible applicants available at

the earlier point of time, after obtaining their consent. If there is

only one person left, then one of the super deluxe flats shall be

allotted to the appellant and he shall be given time of six months

from the date of allotment to make the deposit. It is also made clear

that if the other applicants are not desirous of allotment, then the

second respondent would be entitled to make a re-allotment of the

flat left over based on the existing eligibility as of now.

19. The appeal stands allowed in the aforestated terms.

20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

.……………………………... J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

..………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 17, 2026.

Page 12 of 12 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025