Ganga Maya Gurung vs State Of Sikkim And Ano

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction) DATED : 20.07.2019 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8 of 2016 Petitioner : Ganga Maya Gurung versus Respondents : The State of Sikkim and Another

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India --------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance

Mr. N.B. Khatiwada, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Ms. Gita Bisa, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Petitioner. Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thupden Youngda, Government Advocate and Ms. Pollin Rai, Assistant Government Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. M.N. Dhungel, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Claiming abrogation of her fundamental rights as

guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and

violation of the principles of natural justice, the Petitioner herein

seeks a direction to the Respondent No.1 not to disturb her

possession on a plot of land measuring 20 feet x 25 feet at

Deorali School Road, Gangtok, East Sikkim. That, the

Respondent No.1 be restrained from acting contrary to the

rights of the Petitioner and to stay the Order of the Respondent

No.1 requiring demolition of a structure on the said plot of land

constructed by her.

WP(C) No.08 of 2016 2

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

2. The facts as projected by the Petitioner are that she

is a 50% physically challenged person with permanent

impairment of both her upper limbs as certified by the

concerned authority at the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi vide

a Disability Certificate, dated 11.10.1991. In 1974 she was

married to one Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia from whom she allegedly

separated in the year 1988. In the year 1991, a kitchen

accident rendered her disabled and in order to maintain the

three minor children from her husband, she sought for and was

granted maintenance from him, vide a Magisterial Order, dated

30.03.1992 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the passing away of

her husband in 1992, the Court of the learned District and

Sessions Judge, Sikkim at Gangtok granted her Guardianship of

her three minor children in August, 1993.

3. In this backdrop, in November, 1993 she moved an

application before the Office of the Respondent No.1 seeking

allotment of a housing site, around Gangtok area but was

unable to follow up the matter on account of her disability.

During this time she also met a person who she decided to

share her life with but the relations did not last. Meanwhile her

children also attained majority and in the year 2000 she

transferred the property of her late husband to her children by

issuing a "No Objection Certificate" towards this end. Her

children have since deserted her. Thereafter, despite several

pleas made by her to the concerned Minister and even the Chief

Minister from the year 2005 through 2015, seeking allotment of

a housing site, her pleas fell on deaf ears. She however WP(C) No.08 of 2016 3

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

identified a site at Deorali School Road for allotment to her and

constructed a shed thereon. In April 2015, the Assistant Town

Planner-I, Urban Development and Housing Department (for

short "UD&HD") finally turned down her request inter alia on

grounds of insufficient proof of occupancy of the site and that

the land in question was previously alloted to one Smt. Ganga

Pradhan in the year 1984 and was disputed. In January 2016

the Petitioner received a Demolition Order from the UD&HD,

requiring her to demolish the shed at the said site. She

responded vide a letter dated 20.01.2016, requesting that the

Order be recalled. That she has come to learn that her

application was in fact considered in April, 2015 and site

inspection was carried out but later the site was offered to the

Respondent No.2 in terms of an amicable settlement arrived at

between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in

connection with another Writ Petition, which thereby stood

disposed of. Hence, being aggrieved she has put forth her

prayers as detailed hereinabove.

4. In response, it was averred by the Respondent No.1

that the allotment of house sites is governed by the Sikkim

Allotment of House Sites and Construction of Building

(Regulation and Control) Act, 1985 wherein Section 6 of the Act

mandates that the Government shall not allot more than one

housing site to one family in the State. The husband of the

Petitioner had been alloted a house site in Deorali on

26.12.1975, by the concerned Government Department at the

relevant time upon which he constructed a five storeyed RCC WP(C) No.08 of 2016 4

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

building. In February 2000, the Petitioner gave her consent by

issuance of a "No Objection Certificate" for transfer of the said

alloted site along with the building in favour of her daughter

Tshering Choden Bhutia, which was accordingly executed. In

2003 the Petitioner made an application to the Hon'ble Chief

Minister for allotment of a house site adjacent to the plot

presently in dispute, the allotment was however made in favour

of one C.K. Rai on 02.06.2010. Vide an application dated

15.06.2013 the Petitioner sought site allotment abutting the site

of C.K. Rai but in March 2015 she claimed to be in possession of

the said vacant land wherein she had constructed a kutcha

structure and sought regularization of the said site in her name.

The Respondent No.1 declined her request vide its response

dated 28.04.2015. That, the Respondent No.2 had filed Writ

Petition (C) No.1 of 2013 challenging allotment of a site to one

Smt. Beena Rai at "SNT Complex" and later agreed to an

amicable settlement if alloted a plot for himself. A site

measuring 20 feet x 25 feet was identified and offered to him

near the Working Womens' Hostel, Deorali School Road and

accepted by him, however, the Petitioner had constructed a

kutcha shed measuring 10 feet x 8 feet = 80 square feet on the

said site identified and converted it into a store but did not live

there. The Respondent No.1 consequently issued a Demolition

Order dated 16.01.2016, requiring her to demolish the

unauthorized construction and vacate the premises within seven

days from the date of the Order. Hence the petition be

dismissed.

WP(C) No.08 of 2016 5

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

5. The Respondent No.2 conceded that he had agreed

to the proposal of the Respondent No.1 for allotment of the site

measuring 20 feet x 25 feet at Deorali with the purpose of

amicably settling Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2013 filed by him

against an allotment made by Respondent No.1 to a third party.

That thereafter on such allotment which was duly accepted by

him, he had paid the Site Salami of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one

lakh and twenty five thousand) only and withdrawn the said Writ

Petition.

6. In Rejoinder, the Petitioner contended that she had

severed all ties with her late husband and after her children

attained majority they had deserted her. According to her, the

definition of "family" as per the Act of 1985 as defined in Section

2(c) has been amended by the Sikkim State Site Allotment

Rules, 2012 hence the legal objection raised under the provision

of Section 6 of the Act of 1985 has no application to her case.

While drawing attention to the mandate of the Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995 (for short "Disabilities Act of 1995") the

Petitioner averred that this has not been complied with as no

preferential allotment has been made in her favour. While

admitting that the property in Deorali was transferred in her

daughter's name in the year 2000, she submitted that she had

done so as it was not her property. The grounds taken by the

Respondent No.1 to deny her rights are mala fide and

contradictory to the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 WP(C) No.08 of 2016 6

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

and 21 of the Constitution of India, hence the prayers in the

instant Writ Petition be allowed.

7. Learned Senior Counsel while advancing his

arguments for the Petitioner relied on the provisions of Section

3, Section 34, Section 37(a) and (c) and Section 38 of the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short "Disabilities Act

of 2016") and urged that the law mandates preferential

treatment to persons with disabilities thus she has the first right

to allotment of the concerned site. That the Sikkim State Site

Allotment Rules, 2012 are violative of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and the Petitioner is deprived of her right to

shelter as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) [sic(e)] and Article

21 of the Constitution of India towards which reliance was placed

on U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another v. Friends Co-op.

Housing Society Ltd. and another1. That, despite approval accorded

and endorsed by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister on her

representation, this was ignored by the Department and the

allotment made in favour of the Respondent No.2. It was

reiterated that the property which was alloted to her late

husband in the year 1975 has already been transferred in the

name of her children in the year 2000 and she was a mere

guardian of the said property. Such allotment made in 1975 to

her husband when she had not even met him cannot be an

embargo on the Respondent No.1 to allot the land to her,

besides which, she is not the legal wife of late Lhendup Dorjee

1 AIR 1996 SC 114 WP(C) No.08 of 2016 7

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

Bhutia as per Section 5(1) [sic(i)] of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955. That she was not arrayed as a party in Writ Petition (C)

No.1 of 2013 although the land in her possession was alloted to

Respondent No.2 and hence the Order passed in the Writ Petition

does not bind her. It was further urged that reservation for the

disabled is horizontal reservation which cuts across all vertical

categories including SC, ST, OBC and General as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v.

U.O.I. and another2 and thus applies to her case. She is an

economically weaker woman when pitted against the Respondent

No.2 hence her petition be allowed in the interest of substantial

justice.

8. While resisting the arguments of the Petitioner,

learned Additional Advocate General would submit that it is

evident from the Order, dated 30.03.1992 of the Court of the

Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at

Gangtok, relied on by the Petitioner herself, that, she was indeed

married to late Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia. Her claims that in the

year 1975 she did not know her husband is incorrect, as the

Order supra reveals that she was married to her husband in the

year 1974 while site allotment came to be made in his favour in

December 1975. She has voluntarily handed over the property to

her daughter vide Annexure R-2 in October 2000 duly executing

a "No Objection Certificate," along with her husband's first wife.

Vide the document they have volunteered to grant mutation in

2 AIR 2014 SC 2869 WP(C) No.08 of 2016 8

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

favour of Miss Tshering Choden Bhutia, daughter of Lhendup D.

Bhutia and Ganga Maya Gurung with regard to the property

measuring 12 feet x 10 feet which had been alloted to their late

husband who passed away in the year 1992. In the document,

both the wives of late Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia have admitted that

they are his legal heirs and successors to the property. Now

having given the property to her daughter she cannot seek

another allotment in her favour. That the definition of "family" as

per the Sikkim Allotment of House Sites and Construction of

Building (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985 clearly covers the

Petitioner and she cannot claim rights under the Disabilities Act

of 1995, as due compliance has been given by the Respondent

No.1 to the provision of Section 6 of the Sikkim Allotment of

House Sites and Construction of Building (Regulation and

Control) Act, 1985. A second allotment cannot be made to the

Petitioner after an allotment was already made to her husband in

terms of the Act. If she claims desertion by her children then she

ought to invoke the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and not claim a second

allotment. That, in view of the categorical arguments, the

petition be dismissed.

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted

that the allotment to the Respondent No.2 has not been

challenged in the instant petition and therefore cannot be set

aside. Besides in view of the scarcity of land in the State there

has to be an equitable distribution and a second allotment does

not accrue to the Petitioner when a first allotment was clearly WP(C) No.08 of 2016 9

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

made to her in terms of the provision of Section 6 of the Sikkim

Allotment of House Sites and Construction of Building

(Regulation and Control) Act, 1985 and she has willingly handed

it over to her daughter.

10. I have considered the rival contentions put forth by

learned Counsel at length and meticulously examined all the

documents on record.

11. The question that arises for consideration before this

Court is;

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to allotment of a

housing site in view of a previous allotment made

to her husband? In such a circumstance, can she

invoke the provisions of the Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 or would

the provisions of Section 6 of the Sikkim Allotment

of House Sites and Construction of Building

(Regulation and Control) Act, 1985 be applicable?

12. While addressing the question formulated, it would

be relevant to delve into the provisions of the Sikkim Allotment

of House Sites and Construction of Building (Regulation and

Control) Act, 1985 (hereinafter the "Act of 1985"). Section 2(c)

of the Act of 1985 defines "family" as follows;

"2. Definitions:

(a) ............... (b) ...............

(c) "family" means father, mother, their minor children and includes major children living jointly with the parents."

WP(C) No.08 of 2016 10 Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

The Sikkim State Site Allotment Rules, 2012 (hereinafter the

"Rules of 2012") at Rule 2(1)(e) reiterates the composition of

"family" as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985 tweaking it

by inserting the words "applicant's wife or husband." The said

provision reads as follows;

"2. (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:-

(a) ...............

(b) ...............

(c) ...............

(d) ...............

(e) "Family" means applicant's wife or husband as the case may be, minor children and also includes major children living jointly with the parents;"

From a reading of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act of

1985 and Rule 2(1)(e) of the Rules of 2012, it is evident that

the intent and purport of the provisions remain the same

inasmuch as although the Act of 1985 says "family" means the

persons as described in the Act, the Rules of 2012 provides that

"family" means the applicant's wife or husband etc., as already

extracted supra. On the heels of these two provisions, it is

essential to notice the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1985

which reads as hereunder;

"6. Restriction on allotment of site:

The Government shall not allot more than one site to one family in the state."

The provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1985 are lucid and self-

explanatory. Hence on a careful conjunctive reading of the above

provisions it is apparent that once an allotment is made to a

family comprising of a husband, wife, their children which

includes major children living with them they would not be

eligible for a second allotment. Ergo, when the allotment was

made to the Petitioner's husband in the year 1975 by the WP(C) No.08 of 2016 11

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

concerned Government Department, she comprised of his

"family" having married her husband in the year 1974. This is

evident from the Order of the learned Magisterial Court dated

30.03.1992 (Annexure P-2), a document brought forth by the

Petitioner herself. This document reflects that the Petitioner had

represented three of her minor children as their guardian and

sought maintenance from her husband under Section 488 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Order specifically reveals

as follows;

"... It is the case of the petitioners that Smt. Ganga Maya Gurung and the Opposite party was married in the year 1974 according to local customs. ..."

(emphasis supplied)

Having pleaded so before the learned Magisterial Court, in my

considered opinion she cannot now reprobate and state that she

is not the legal wife of her husband in terms of Section 5(i) of

the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. In Cauvery Coffee Traders,

Mangalore v. Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited3

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia held as follows;

"34. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate".

Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, ..."

Besides, the learned Magistrate has recorded that she was

married to her late husband as per the local customs. No further

discussions need ensue on this point with regard to her

statement viz-a-viz the legality of her marriage to her late

3 (2011) 10 SCC 420 WP(C) No.08 of 2016 12

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

husband as the Order supra clarifies the position. This Court

thereby proceeds on the postulation that she was married to her

late husband in the year 1974 and thereby a part of his family

at that point of time.

13. The rather feeble contention that the Petitioner had

decided to share her life with another person has not been

elucidated either in the averments or in the arguments.

Although vide Annexure P-5, the Petitioner tried to establish

that her children had abandoned her on account of the fact that

she was involved with another man, and the document states

that the Petitioner had eloped with another man but it is

relevant to note that the document is neither dated nor does it

bear the signature of witnesses. In my considered opinion the

document appears to have been prepared only for the purposes

of the instant matter and therefore requires no further

consideration.

14. While reverting to the arguments of learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioner, it was contended by learned Counsel

that the Act of 1985 was amended by the Rules of 2012. This is

clearly a misconception. The Act of 1985 is law passed by the

legislature and the Rules of 2012 have been made in exercise of

the powers conferred by Section 16 of the aforestated Act to

enable application or enforcement of the Act. They are not two

separate Acts as sought to be interpreted by learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioner. Hence, the question of the Act of WP(C) No.08 of 2016 13

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

1985 being amended by the Rules of 2012 is a preposterous

proposition and unacceptable.

15. That having been said, the Petitioner admittedly

along with the first wife of her late husband voluntarily handed

over the alloted site with the standing structure to Miss Tshering

Choden Bhutia, the daughter of the Petitioner and her late

husband. On this aspect, we may usefully refer to Annexure R-2

which is a "No Objection Certificate" addressed to the District

Collector, East District at Gangtok in October, 2000 by one "Mrs.

Phungchung Bhutia, 1st Wife of Late Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia" and

the Petitioner, wherein both the applicants being the wives of

late Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia have stated as much in the said

application and that their late husband left them as his "legal

heirs and successors" to his estate. It is also admitted therein

that their husband owned and possessed a five storeyed RCC

building situated at Deorali Bazar, East Sikkim measuring 12 feet

x 10 feet and the documents thereof were enclosed. It was

further stated that one Miss Tshering Choden Bhutia is the legal

daughter of Lhendup Dorjee and Ganga Maya Bhutia, (the

Petitioner herein) and that both the wives of late Lhendup Dorjee

Bhutia had "no objection whatsoever in granting mutation of the

property mentioned above in favour of Miss Tshering Choden

Bhutia" and that they bind themselves "not to revoke the instant

document." Pursuant thereto the UD&HD vide Annexure R-3

transferred the concerned property from the name of late

Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia to his daughter Tshering Choden Bhutia.

No grounds for any compulsion for alienating the property WP(C) No.08 of 2016 14

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

emanate in the document nor was it clarified before this Court.

Pausing here for a moment and reverting back to the dates as

made out in the petition, it is clear that the Petitioner was

married to Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia in 1974, separated in 1988,

was disabled in 1991, widowed in 1992 and in the year 2000

voluntarily made over the alloted property to her daughter.

Thus, admittedly she was separated from her husband but

divorce did not rear its head either in the pleadings or in the

verbal arguments. On separation from her husband she sought

maintenance and despite being physically disabled in 1991, in

the year 2000 of her own accord and free will, she handed over

the said property to her daughter. It is consequently relevant to

mull over as to whether she can now come before the

Government claiming another allotment by seeking preferential

treatment on account of disability when her disability existed at

the time of alienation of property to her daughter. Was it

prudent on her part to have voluntarily handed over the property

of her late husband to her daughter when the site on which the

structure came to be erected was in fact a Government

allotment? After such voluntary action, does a right accrue to her

in terms of the Disabilities Acts to seek allotment? In my

considered opinion, these ponderings would have to be answered

in the negative. While having said so, although the arguments of

learned Senior Counsel pivoted around the provisions of the

Disabilities Act of 2016 and its application to the Petitioner, it

may pertinently be noted that the instant petition was filed on

"12.04.2016" and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, WP(C) No.08 of 2016 15

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

2016 was enforced on "19.04.2017," therefore the Petitioner

would be covered by the provisions of the Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995. Chapter VII of the said Act provides for

affirmative action wherein Section 43 provides for "Schemes for

preferential allotment of land for certain purposes" including land

at concessional rates for the purposes of a house. In compliance

thereof the Rules of 2012 has alloted 33% reservation for

Economically Weaker Sections of the society and physically

handicapped persons in the State as mentioned therein. The

Rules of 2012 at Rule 5(1) lays down as follows;

"5. ...

(1) Thirty three percent (33%) of the site area will be reserved for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society, physically handicapped persons, victims of natural calamities and people with exemplary records in the area of Art, Science and Sports."

(emphasis supplied)

The relevant Rules provide for reservations for the category of

persons described therein including for allotment of housing

land however, admittedly, an allotment in terms of Section 2 of

the Act of 1985 was already made to the Petitioner's husband.

16. Although averments in her pleadings have

constantly tried to mislead the Court by stating that the

property was given away to her "children" however the

documents on record bear out that it was in fact handed over to

one child. It is indeed unscrupulous and inequitable on the part

of the Petitioner to hand over the alloted property to a major

child, (who, it may be remarked, would have been eligible for

allotment of Government property subject to fulfillment of WP(C) No.08 of 2016 16

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

necessary conditions) and thereafter entreat the Government

for a second allotment. This is an unacceptable circumstance.

Even assuming that a second allotment is made to her, can it be

ruled out that she would not hand over the said allotment to

another child of hers or any other person of her choice and then

appear before the Government once again invoking the grounds

of her disability? This would indeed be stretching the

interpretation of the Disabilities Act of 1995 beyond its ambit

and purport. A person once alloted a property in terms of

Section 2 of the Act of 1985 and Rules of 2012 is duly covered

by the embargo of Section 6 of the Act of 1985. She does not

have the licence to invoke the disabilities provision repeatedly

while magnanimously handing out the property previously

alloted to the family. The argument that when the land was

allotted in the name of Lhendup Dorjee Bhutia in the year 1975

she did not know him is a blatantly incorrect statement when

the records (Annexure P-2) relied on by the Petitioner herself

reveal that she was married to him in the year 1974.

17. It emanates from the averments and the arguments

advanced before this Court that the Petitioner was squatting on

the land by constructing a shed measuring about 80 square

feet. The Respondent No.1 on inspection found that it was

merely a godown and she was not living in the area. The

Petitioner, before this Court, is now taking the stance of a bully

and persuading the Respondent No.1 to legitimize her

illegitimate claim over the property by claiming disability. Merely

because she was a squatter on the property does not give her WP(C) No.08 of 2016 17

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

preferential rights nor does her disability clothe her with

preferential rights in light of the foregoing circumstances and

detailed discussions thereof. It is not denied that a Writ Petition

filed by Respondent No.1 against Respondent No.2 was pending

before this Court previously and consequently by way of a

settlement between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2

it was agreed that the said area measuring 20 feet x 25 feet

would be allotted to the Respondent No.2 upon which the Writ

Petition was withdrawn. When a person claims a right as against

the Government pertaining to land, they are required to

establish possession either by production of title deeds to the

property or by establishing possession adverse to the

Government for a period of not less than thirty years. Vague

claims of stray or sporadic entries into any property which is

owned by the Government will not be adequate to prove

possession as is sought to be made out by the Petitioner and is

to be ignored by the Court.

18. The claim of violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the

Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice cannot

sustain. In Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

and Others4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia held that;

"...any person, who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21."

The Constitution bench had considered the rights of pavement

dwellers and observed that it was a part of right to life enshrined

4 (1985) 3 SCC 545 WP(C) No.08 of 2016 18

Ganga Maya Gurung vs. The State of Sikkim and Another

in Article 21 of the Constitution. Their eviction from their

dwellings which were close to their place of work would

tantamount to deprivation of their right to livelihood. The

Petitioner herein has not revealed as to how she earns her living

or where she resides, in any event she is not living in the

structure purported to have been constructed by her nor is it her

case that the structure is near her place of livelihood, these

details are not disclosed and are shrouded in mystery. The

records would reveal that after she filed an application seeking

allotment, the Government has furnished her with reasons as to

why the allotment cannot be made to her. The principle of audi

alteram partum has not been sidestepped by the State-

Respondent No.1.

19. In the end result, the Writ Petition being devoid of

merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

20. No order as to costs.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 20.07.2019

Approved for reporting : Yes ml Internet : Yes