When the allotment of the residential accommodation to the petitioner was subject to compliance being meted with the all the relevant rules, thereupon, the writ petitioner cannot make any contention before this Court that the extant available vacant accommodation be allotted to him. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Dr. Rattan Singh Versus Sh. Suneel Sharma & another [COPC No. 79 of 2021] by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The relevant operative portion of the verdict rendered by the Court, upon, stands extracted, the respondents-University were directed, to, within three weeks, convene meeting of the House Allotment Committee and the latter shall consider in accordance with the relevant Rules, the application of the writ petitioner, for his being, granted an accommodation, other than the one, which he was enjoying. The respondents convened the meeting of the House Allotment Committee, and, the proceedings drawn in the afore meeting were extracted here in after. The committee thoroughly examined and verified the relevant record and it was found that there is only one Type-IV residential accommodation vacant in the Teachers’ Colony (40 Flats), which was recently vacated by Prof Laxman Singh Thakur. In this context it was also found that the said residential accommodation needs to be renovated in order to make it habitable as per report of the Executive Engineer. After detailed discussion, the Committee unanimously decided that the matter of the petitioner would be duly considered as per rules in order of his seniority amongst the other eligible applicants as and when the next meeting of the Committee would be held for which the petitioner is required to apply through proper procedure on the proforma for change of accommodation.”
The court opinioned that, “It clearly personify that the residential accommodation as now available with the House Allotment Committee, for allotment to the applicants concerned, is under renovation. Necessarily, the afore consideration order, did not make, any peremptory direction(s), upon, the respondents to ensure allotment of the available/vacant accommodation, if any, vis-a-vis, the applicant, and, also it did not cast any obligation, upon, the respondents, to dehors the relevant rules, make allotment of the afore accommodation to the petitioner, rather when the allotment of the residential accommodation to the petitioner was subject to compliance being meted with the all the relevant rules, thereupon, the writ petitioner cannot make any contention before this Court that the extant available vacant accommodation be allotted to him.”
The court disposed of the case stating that, “However, the respondents are directed to ensure that after completion of the renovation of the extant available vacant residential accommodation, and, also as and when other than the afore residential accommodation(s), becomes available for allotment to the allottees concerned, they shall bear mind the seniority of the applicant/petitioner herein.”