1994 (12) TMI 350 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement of category (iii) and (vi) employees to priority in allotment of government quarters under hire purchase scheme.
2. Legality of the government resolutions dated February 18, 1975, and March 10, 1980.
3. Exercise of power by the State under Section 82 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act vis-a-vis the regulations made under Section 74 of the Act.
4. Violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Category (iii) and (vi) Employees:

The primary issue was whether employees falling under categories (iii) and (vi) were entitled to priority in the allotment of government quarters under the hire purchase scheme. The High Court quashed the entitlement of these categories, which led to the appeals. The appellants argued that the initial permission from the Government of India required a five-year stay, and category (iii) employees had shifted due to state government compulsion. However, the Supreme Court found that category (iii) employees had vacated their premises for better accommodation at Gandhinagar, and as they were not in possession of the houses at Pahari, they were not entitled to the allotment. Similarly, category (vi) employees, who had been transferred outside Ahmedabad, were also not entitled as per the High Court's reasoning. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating it was just and reasonable.

2. Legality of Government Resolutions:

The High Court had upheld the legality of the resolutions dated February 18, 1975, and March 10, 1980, but quashed the priority categories (iii) and (vi). The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision, noting that the resolutions were valid except for the provisions concerning categories (iii) and (vi).

3. Exercise of Power by the State:

The contention was raised regarding the exercise of power by the State under Section 82 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act vis-a-vis the regulations made under Section 74. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into this issue. The Court noted that the houses were constructed for the weaker sections and later allotted to government employees due to the shifting of the capital. Thus, the statutory exercise of power had no bearing on the allotment to the government employees in question.

4. Violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21:

The appellants argued that the denial of allotment to category (vi) employees violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the right to residence and settlement under Article 19(1)(e) and the expanded meaning of the right to life under Article 21. However, it found that the High Court's decision to exclude categories (iii) and (vi) was not arbitrary or irrational. The Court highlighted that the decision to convert the rental scheme to a hire purchase scheme on June 22, 1972, was rational and bore a reasonable relation to the object of allotment.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that there was no illegality in excluding employees of categories (iii) and (vi) from the allotment under the hire purchase scheme. The appeals were dismissed without costs.