Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4315-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 4071 of 2024 SONY KUMARI, aged about 36 years, wife of Gopal Kumar, resident of C-205, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, Kolghatti, near E.V.M. house, Kolghatti, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented by its Chief Government Secretary, Ranchi, P.O.- Doranda, of Jharkhand, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O.-Doranda, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.S. + District Hazaribagh. 4. Municipal Commissioner, Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation, P.O., P.S. + District- Hazaribagh. 5. The Superintendent of Police, P.O., P.S. + District- Hazaribagh. 6. The Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, HFA Directorate, Nirman Bhawan, P.O. and P.S., and District-New Delhi. 7. Sapna Joshi, care of Guardian- Raghunath Ram, resident of Flat No. H-104, Block-H, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 8. Sweta Kumari Rana, Daughter of Niranjay Rana, resident of Flat No. 108, Block-A, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 9. Soni Rana, wife of Pankaj Kumar Rana, resident of Flat No.102, Block-H, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 10. Kamal Kumari, wife of Vikash Rana, resident of Flat No.103, Block-B, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 11. Shanti Devi, wife of Shiv Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No.105, Block-E, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 12. Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Shiv Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No.104, Block-E, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 13. Pritam Kumar Soni, son of Dasrath Prasad Soni, resident of Flat No.107, Block-E, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4315-DB 14. Pradip Kumar Soni, son of Dasrath Prasad Soni, resident of Flat No.306, Block-E, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 15. Shweta Sinha, care of guardian Sanjay Kumar Sinha, resident of Flat No.407, Block-G, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 16. Punam Sinha, care of guardian Sanjay Kumar Sinha, resident of Flat No.204, Block-B, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 17. Raju Kumar Yadav, son of Sitaram Yadav, resident of Flat No.303, Block-B, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 18. Sunita Devi, wife of Shankar Kumar Das, resident of Flat No.109, Block-A, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. 19. Ajay Kumar, son of Gouri Shankar Prasad, resident of Flat No.203, Block-G, PMAY, Vertical Flat 3, Kolghatti, District- Hazaribagh. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the UOI: Mr. Radhe Krishna Gupta, C.G.C. Mrs. Pinky Shaw, C.G.C. For Resp. No.4: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For Private Resps: Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III --------- 10/Dated: 16.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner complains that the allotment of flats allotted to respondent nos.7 to 19 under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (Urban) in Hazaribagh district are illegal, because, the allottees do not fulfill the criteria prescribed under the Awas Yojna. 3. She submits that despite her complaint dated 25.06.2021, which was followed up by other complaints, the Municipal Commissioner of Hazaribagh (R-4), who has made the allotments, is Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4315-DB not even looking into the petitioner’s complaints. She submits that instead, a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner alleging that the allotment made to her is illegal and improper. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that it is only after illegalities were noticed in the allotment made to the petitioner and the show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 07.06.2024 and 24.06.2024, then the petitioner has chosen to file this petition by styling the same as a ‘Public Interest Litigation’. They submit that this is not a bona fide Public Interest Litigation, but the same has been instituted only to prevent the adjudication of the of the show-cause notices issued against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that based upon the petitioner’s complaints, a Committee was constituted which has looked into the complaints made by the petitioner, but found no merit in the same. Copies of some enquiry reports have been annexed along with the counter filed by the respondents. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. At the outset, we have perused the enquiry report annexed to the counter and we are not satisfied that this was some serious or detailed enquiry into the complaints of the petitioner. The report, prima facie, concerns only one family, though the petitioner’s allegation is that the allotments made to respondents 7 to 19 are illegal and infirm. 8. In any event, the enquiries have not been made by the Municipal Commissioner, but by some Committee. The Committee has also based its conclusions on enquiries with some of the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4315-DB neighbours. The enquiry was extremely cursory and inspires no confidence. 9. Accordingly, the interest of justice as also public interest would be best served if the Municipal Commissioner enquires into the petitioner’s complaints regarding allotment of flats to respondent nos.7 to 19. In such an enquiry, even the petitioner should be heard, so that she can elaborate upon her allegations and also offer proof in support of her contention. The Municipal Commissioner must pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner, the parties against whom allegations have been made by the petitioner, and the officials who may have been involved in the allotment, including those who prepared notes, checklists, and certificates of eligibility. This exercise must be completed within six months of today. 10. The petitioner has been making complaints since 2021. The petitioner has also applied for information under the Right to Information Act regarding the allotments. Therefore, the respondents' contention that this petition was filed only after the show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner may not be correct. The petition may have been filed after the receipt of show-cause notices, but the petitioner’s complaints were prior in point of time. The petitioner was pursuing the complaints with the authorities, and this petition was filed only because the authorities were not taking the petitioner’s complaints seriously or acting based on the same. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner because the petitioner was Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4315-DB pursuing her complaints, and that there is nothing illegal in the allotment made to the petitioner. 12. At this stage, we are not addressing the merits of the complaints against the petitioner. The above observations are intended solely to refute the respondents' contention that this petition should not be entertained. Even the complaints against the petitioner or the show-cause notices against the petitioner must be pursued. Because if there is any illegality in the allotment of the flat, even to the petitioner, then the Municipal Commissioner is obliged to look into the same and take action in accordance with law. 13. The allotments under such a scheme are made as a measure of social welfare. Therefore, there must be complete transparency in such allotments, and only those eligible for such allotments shall receive the benefits thereof. The authorities responsible for operating such schemes must, therefore, ensure that only persons eligible under the scheme, or who fulfil the terms and conditions prescribed under the scheme, obtain the benefit of allotments. Even if complaints are made regarding foul play, the allotting authorities must investigate such complaints and, if there is merit, take action as permitted by law. 14. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by directing that the petitioner’s complaints against respondents 7 to 19 must be investigated by the Municipal Commissioner and disposed of within six months from today. The petitioner and respondents 7 to 19 must be given an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned order must be passed by the Municipal Commissioner. Copies of such a reasoned Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4315-DB decision should be made available to all the parties, including the petitioner. 15. Similarly, the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner must also be adjudicated upon by the Municipal Commissioner himself. If any of the respondents 7 to 19 wish to participate in such adjudication, they should be allowed to do so. Even here, a reasoned order should be passed and communicated to the parties. The show- cause notices must be disposed of within six months from today. 16. The Municipal Commissioner may, in fact, investigate into the petitioner’s complaints and the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner in a single proceeding. Parties should be afforded the opportunity to file further responses, evidence, and other materials. In general, the principles of natural justice must be complied with, and a reasoned order must be passed by the Municipal Commissioner. 17. This Court has not examined the merits of the rival contentions; therefore, all contentions regarding the merits of the complaints and the cross-complaints are left open for decision by the Municipal Commissioner in the first instance. 18. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any costs order. All concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 16, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 17-Feb-26