Item 21 06.08.2026 Court. No. 12 Cp FMA/726/2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. VS RITA PATHAK AND ORS. Mr. Shiilon Sengupta Mr. Ayan Chakraborty Mr. Subhajit Saha Mr. Aditya Pandey …..for the appellants. Mr. Soumik Ganguli …..for the respondent no.1. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated February 28, 2025, passed in WPA 28951 of 2024. By the order impugned, the learned Judge directed the Housing Board to allot Flat No. B/22/6 in Shilpakanan Housing Project. Admittedly, the appellant is the West Bengal Housing Board. The respondent no. 1 was successful in the lottery held on August 27, 2024. Prior to the lottery, sometime in May 2024, the respondent no. 1 made a request to the Commissioner, Abasan, inter alia, stating that, in the event she is successful in the lottery for final allotment, she would be obliged if the vacant flat bearing No. B/22/6, would be allotted to her. The reason being that, due to her physical ailment the doctor had prohibited her from climbing stairs. Admittedly, the respondent 2 no. 1 participated in the lottery held in respect of Shilpakanan Housing Project, Phase III, Durgapur, for allotment of a flat vide application No. 00319. As the Board did not allot the flat which was subsequently requested by the respondent no.1, the writ petition was filed. 2. Her Lordship recorded that Flat No. B/22/6 was not allotted in favour of any other applicant and the flat was vacant. On three occasions, there were advertisement, but no one had opted for the said flat. Under such circumstances, Her Lordship directed the Housing Board to allot Flat No. B/22/6 in favour of the respondent no.1, subject to payment of the sale price and compliance of other necessary changes. 3. We are told that even today, the said flat is lying vacant. Learned advocate for the Housing Board submits that the applicant/respondent no.1 was bound by the contents of her application and subsequent change of the chosen flat was not permissible under the advertisement. Filing of the application by the proposed buyer pursuant to the advertisement, amounts to a concluded contract and the contractual terms cannot be changed by the court. It is further contended by Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate for the appellants, that the lift 3 has been installed in the building and, as such, the respondent no. 1 will not have difficulty in taking the stairs. Under such circumstances, it has been urged by Mr. Sengupta that the decision of the Board with regard to allotment of flats only by way of lottery was binding and final. The writ court could not have directed the Housing Board to act in any particular manner at the choice of a buyer. 4. Mr. Ganguli, learned advocate for the respondent no.1, submits that Clause 22 of the General Terms & Conditions for Completed and Upcoming Projects under the Housing Board provided that a buyer could pray for change of allotted unit prior to the lottery. The relevant clause is quoted below:- “22. No prayer for change of allotted Unit, change of floor, CPS, location etc. shall be entertained after the lottery is completed. Verification of original documents shall be done prior to Lottery. Only the applicants who successfully complete the verifications, shall be eligible for participating in lottery.” 5. Thus, in our view, the contention of Mr. Sengupta that no prayer for change of allotted unit could be allowed after the application was filed, is not accepted as the terms and conditions speak otherwise. They provide that the prayer for change of allotted units or change of floors etc. could not be made and could not be entertained 4 by the Board, after the lottery was completed. Verification of documents would also be made prior to the lottery and upon successful completion of the verification process, the eligible buyers could participate. 6. The eligibility of the respondent no. 1 is not in question. The fact that the respondent no. 1 requested allotment of Flat No. B/22/6 prior to the lottery being completed, is also not in question. The respondent no. 1 acted in terms of the Clause No. 22 of the General Terms & Conditions. Secondly, and most importantly, the said flat has not yet seen a buyer as none responded to the advertisements. 7. Under such circumstances, we do not find any perversity in the order impugned. Her Lordship had also protected the interest of the Housing Board by directing that, if further payment was required to be made in case of any difference in prices of the flats, the said differential amount shall be paid and necessary changes with regard to other formalities shall also be completed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 are dismissed. 9. We are of the view that this decision should be restricted to the writ petitioner and shall not create any precedence. 5 10. The order of Her Lordship shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 11. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)