[2025:RJ-JP:47514] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1137/2019 Mohammad Asgar S/o Mohammad Ibrahim, aged about 59 years, R/o H.No.1124, Behind Neeli Haveli, Ramganj, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Bhagwandas Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through Chairman. 2. Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Circle I, Jaipur. 3. Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board, Circle I, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 24/11/2025 1. Petitioner has challenged letter/order dated 31.10.2018 issued by Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board, Circle I, Jaipur, whereby Flat No.28/ST/L-353(GF) has been cancelled. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of one independent house in Low Income Group (for short, 'LIG') at Mansarovar, Jaipur on 14.09.1973 pursuant to Scheme launched by Rajasthan Housing Board and further he also deposited three installments, however, when house was not allotted to the petitioner, he contacted in the office of Rajasthan Housing Board, where he was directed to apply afresh in new housing scheme launched by name of Self Funded Scheme, 1993, where [2025:RJ-JP:47514] (2 of 4) [CW-1137/2019] preference shall be given to him, being applicant of the earlier Scheme. 3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter one plot was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1994 against which also the petitioner deposited some amount in installments, however, being a person of LIG, he was not in a position to deposit the last installment as demanded by Rajasthan Housing Board for which he prayed for granting him some relaxation and to permit him to deposit the amount in installments. However, his request was not accepted by the Rajasthan Housing Board, therefore, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Forum by way of filing a complaint. While deciding the complaint, directions were given by the District Consumer Forum to refund the amount earlier deposited by the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jaipur. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed with directions to the Rajasthan Housing Board to issue allotment letter as per priority number of the petitioner and to raise a demand of any amount recoverable from complainant as per Rules. 4. In compliance thereafter, instead of allotting any independent house/plot, one plot No.28/ST/L-353(GF) was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter No.RHB/CIRCLE/JPR-1/2016- 17/3565 dated 17.06.2016. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that against allotment of the aforesaid flat, demand of Rs.16,98,666/- was raised which was opposed by the petitioner being exorbitant [2025:RJ-JP:47514] (3 of 4) [CW-1137/2019] and excessive. However, vide letter dated 31.11.2018, the allotment of the petitioner has been cancelled by respondent- Rajasthan Housing Board mentioning that the petitioner has shown his inability to take possession of the flat and also requested for refund of the amount earlier deposited by him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that no such request as referred to in cancellation letter dated 31.11.2018 has been made by the petitioner. Thus, cancellation of allotment of flat is totally arbitrary and is on non-existent reasons. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that reasons for cancellation of flat is that the petitioner could not satisfy the demand raised in allotment letter and the allotment was subject to deposition of the amount as demanded. Hence, the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board has rightly cancelled the flat earlier allotted to the petitioner. 8. Heard and considered. 9. On a specific query to learned counsel for the respondents to show any request made by the petitioner for claiming refund of the amount earlier deposited by him or revealing inability, shown by him in taking possession, he utterly failed to point out any such letter and submitted that the reason for cancellation is rather failure to deposit the amount demanded by the Rajasthan Housing Board. 10. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405, Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the respondent can defend the order on the basis of [2025:RJ-JP:47514] (4 of 4) [CW-1137/2019] the contents of the order and such reasons cannot be supplemented by way of filing affidavit and any additional reply. 11. In the instant case, the reason shown in the cancellation letter dated 31.11.2018 are totally non-existent and no such letter whatsoever to support the reasons has been shown by learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, it is evident from the record that cancellation of flat of the petitioner vide order dated 31.11.2018 is totally arbitrary and unjustified. Hence, the letter dated 31.11.2018 issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. In case, the petitioner deposits the amount demanded by Rajasthan Housing Board in allotment letter dated 17.06.2016 within a period of sixty days from this order, the respondents shall issue possession letter in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the said allotment letter. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/35