BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS. versus ASHA LATA VERMA

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 28-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 561 
./.--+.,. 
-
BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS. 
A 
v. 
ASHA LATA VERMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 5779 of 2008) 
.. 
f 
~ 
JULY 28, 2011 
B 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Housing - Allotment of flat - Re-determination/re-fixation 
of price after delivery of possession - Allotment of flat in 
favour of original allottee on payment of the prescribed c 
amount - Death of allottee - Transfer of flat in the name of 
allottee's wife on her furnishing the proof of payment and other 
.....,, 
.. 
documents - Subsequently permission sought by wife-
respondent to transfer the flat in the name of her daughter-
in-law -
Issuance of notice by Housing Board to the 
D 
respondent raising huge· demand towards outstanding dues 
against the flat - Writ petition filed by the respondent - Single 
·Judge of the High Court quashed the demand notice and 
directed the Board to grant permission for transfer of the flat 
in favour of the respondent's daughter-in-law; and ordered for E 
Vigilance inquiry against the Board and its officials - Order 
upheld by the Division Bench - On appeal, held: In absence 
.. 
of specific complaint furnishing required details by the 
. .,, 
respondent or anyone pointing mismanagement in the affairs 
of the Housing Board, the Single Judge was not justified in 
F 
issuing directions for Vigilance Inquiry - Order relating to the 
relief granted to the respondent is upheld and all other 
directions relating to the Board and its officials are set aside. 
,I 
Appellant-State Housing Board allotted a flat in favour G 
"' 
of original allottee. The allottee paid the entire amount to 
the Board within the time prescribed. The original allottee 
expired and his wife (respondent) applied for transfer of 
the flat in her name. The respondent furnished the proof 
of payment and other documents and the flat was 
H 
561 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 
A transferred in he·r name. Thereafter, the respondent 
sought transfer of the flat in her daughter-in-law's name. 
The Housing Board raised a huge demand towards 
outstanding dues against the flat. Aggrieved, the 
respondent filed a writ petition for quashing the demand 
B notices and that the Board was not entitled to re-
determine/re-fix the price after delivery of the possession 
of the flat. The Single Judge of the High Court quashed 
the demand notice and directed the Board to grant 
permission for transfer of the flat in favour of the 
C respondent's daughter-in-law. It also directed the 
Additional Director General of Vigilance to institute a case 
against the Board and to inquire into the activities of the 
officials involved in the process of decision making and 
also to initiate enquiry into the assets and properties of 
0 such officials of the Board. The Division Bench of the 
High Court upheld the order passed by the Single Judge. 
Therefore, the appellant-Housing Board filed the instant 
appeal. 
E 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 As early as on 07 .02.2008, the Single 
Judge disposed of the writ petition by allowing the same 
and granted relief to the respondent and ordered for 
Vigilance inquiry against the Board and its officials. 
F Thereafter, even though the LP.A. filed by the Board 
against the order of the Single Judge was also disposed 
of by the Division Bench, it is not clear and 
understandable how the matter was heard by the Single 
Judge then and there. Even afutr perusing the report of 
the Vigilance Department based on the opinion of the 
G Advocate General, the Single Judge passed further order 
on 03.05.2010 and again directed the Vigilance 
Department to submit further report. It is the grievance 
of the Board that inasmuch as the writ petitioner has 
secured an appropriate relief and in the absence of any 
H 
.. .,:,,,.. . 
' 
( 
• 
., 
BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS. v. ASHA 563 
~ ""-
-----::::--/ 
LATAVERMA 
specific claim/complaint furnished with required details, 
A 
the Single Judge was not justified in directing the 
Vigilance Department for roving inquiry into the affairs of 
.} , 
the Board. [Para 9) [569-D-G] 
.. 
1.2 The only question before the Single Judge was B 
related to the demand notice issued by the Board. No 
doubt, the petitioner made certain statements against the 
officials· of the Board, however, there is no specific 
complaint either by the writ petitioner or anyone pointing 
mismanagement in the affairs of the Board. If there is any c 
specific complaint giving all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.