Today, On 18th February, The Supreme Court of India cancelled the allotment of two deluxe flats in Haryana to a governing body member and his subordinate, stressing that such acts reflect nepotism and self-aggrandizement, which are anathema to the values of a democratic system.
The Supreme Court cancelled the allotment of two flats by a housing society in Haryana to a member of the governing body and his subordinate, highlighting that nepotism and self-aggrandizement are contrary to democratic principles.
Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set-aside a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had declined to interfere in the allotment process.
The court found that the allotments made to the governing body member and his subordinate were arbitrary and biased, violating the society’s own eligibility criteria.
The bench stated,
“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,”
This ruling came in response to a petition filed by Dinesh Kumar, a member of the HUDA, Urban Estate, and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organisation, who contested the allocation of two luxurious flats to individuals he claimed were ineligible and accused the society of favoritism.
The Supreme Court noted that Kumar had applied in accordance with the advertisement and met all eligibility criteria, including both the deputation period and salary requirements.
The bench remarked,
“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 favoritism and blatant display of self-aggrandizement,”
Due to the serious abuse of authority, the apex court annulled the High Court’s judgment, imposing a fine of Rs.1 lakh on HUDA, along with Rs.50,000 on the third respondent and Rs.25,000 on the fourth respondent.
Additionally, the second respondent is required to pay Rs.50,000 to the appellant for litigation expenses, with the remaining amount to be deposited with the Supreme Court’s Legal Services Committee.
The fines imposed on the third and fourth respondents must be deposited within two months.
The court clarified that the costs imposed on the second respondent could be recovered from the governing body members, except for the third respondent who has been fined separately.
The third and fourth respondents are to receive refunds of their deposited amounts within one month, without interest, and they must vacate the premises within one month of the refund.