Full Judgment Text
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
J U D G M E N T
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
promotion of literature, science, fine arts, diffusion of useful
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
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
rd
3 respondent; in his official capacity, to himself; in the individual
capacity, making it a complete farce. The said letter calls upon the
rd
3 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
rd
the membership fees deposited by the 3 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.
th
However, as admitted by the second respondent, the 4
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
rd
body members, except the 3 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
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
J U D G M E N T
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
promotion of literature, science, fine arts, diffusion of useful
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
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
rd
3 respondent; in his official capacity, to himself; in the individual
capacity, making it a complete farce. The said letter calls upon the
rd
3 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
rd
the membership fees deposited by the 3 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.
th
However, as admitted by the second respondent, the 4
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
rd
body members, except the 3 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