Statutory housing allotment conditions govern writ relief, but non-compliance with brochure terms defeats a claim to allotment

Writ review was available against a Housing Board's cancellation of allotment because the brochure governing the statutory housing scheme had statutory character and the Board's action was subject to public law scrutiny. However, the applicant could not enforce allotment as of right since the brochure required documentary compliance, including proof of income, and that compliance was not duly shown despite opportunity. The Court therefore upheld the cancellation for non-fulfilment of the allotment conditions, while leaving the applicant free to seek consideration upon proper compliance with the brochure terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge cancellation of allotment made by the Housing Board under the housing scheme brochure. (ii) Whether the appellants had complied with the brochure conditions so as to defeat the cancellation and claim allotment as of right.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge cancellation of allotment made by the Housing Board under the housing scheme brochure.

Analysis: The Board was treated as a statutory body/instrumentality acting under the West Bengal Housing Board Act, 1972, and the brochure framed under that Act was given statutory character. The dispute was therefore not treated as one of a mere private contract simpliciter. The Court accepted that where the authority acts under statutory power, arbitrariness and unfair action may attract judicial review in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ remedy was not excluded on the ground that the matter arose from a contractual arrangement alone.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had complied with the brochure conditions so as to defeat the cancellation and claim allotment as of right.

Analysis: The brochure required documentary proof of income and related compliance before allotment could stand. The Court found that the appellant had not duly and appropriately complied with the relevant requirements despite opportunity. The earlier reliance on promissory estoppel and fairness could not override the admitted non-compliance with the governing terms of allotment.

Conclusion: The cancellation was upheld because the appellants had not fulfilled the brochure conditions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the refusal of allotment was sustained, though the appellant was left free to have her claim considered upon due compliance with the brochure conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where allotment under a statutory housing scheme depends on compliance with the governing brochure conditions, judicial review will not compel allotment in favour of an applicant who has not fulfilled those conditions, even if the authority is otherwise subject to public law scrutiny.

---