Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by six petitioners, who are permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir, and are registered as “Kashmiri Migrants” in Delhi challenging the terms of the Delhi Development Authority’s (DDA) “Special Housing Registration Scheme for Retired/Retiring J&K Migrants as these conditions were discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights to shelter under Article 21. Manoj Jain, J., dismissed the petition finding no substance in the present writ petition as the second scheme was not a rehabilitation scheme the petitioners were grossly mistaken in seeking any parity.
The Court also held that first scheme was a rehabilitation scheme and, therefore, the eligibility criteria have to be much more relaxed and, therefore, the second scheme, formulated for providing housing facility to Central Government Employees, need not be at par with the first scheme.
The DDA (respondent 3) had introduced two distinct schemes, the “Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants” (First Scheme) and the “Special Housing Registration Scheme for Retired/Retiring J&K Migrants” (Second Scheme). The First Scheme catered to 237 families residing in designated refugee camps in Delhi, offering one-room flats on a hire-purchase basis at highly subsidized rates and with long repayment periods. The Second Scheme, on the other hand, was specifically tailored for retired or retiring Central Government Employees who were Kashmiri migrants. It provided MIG (two-bedroom) and LIG (one-bedroom) flats, primarily on a cash-down payment basis, with limited hire-purchase options for those nearing retirement. The petitioners, all retired Central Government Employees, claimed that the onerous payment terms of the Second Scheme prevented them from availing themselves of its benefits.
The petitioners alleged that the Second Scheme’s terms were discriminatory and far less favorable compared to the First Scheme, thus violating their fundamental right to shelter under Article 21. They sought parity with the First Scheme, requesting an amendment to the Second Scheme’s payment structure to allow repayment in 240 monthly installments. They also cited the State’s constitutional obligation to provide adequate housing for displaced Kashmiri migrants. This plea was supported by references to the judicial precedent set in UOI v. Vijay Mam, which underscored the State’s duty to protect fundamental rights, including the right to shelter.
The petitioners also argued that despite their attempts to access housing under the Second Scheme, the conditions for allotment were so stringent that most applicants were unable to qualify. They further pointed out that 88 out of the 100 flats under the Second Scheme remained unallotted, highlighting the scheme’s failure to serve its intended purpose.
The DDA contested the petition, asserting that the Second Scheme was not a rehabilitation scheme. but a policy specifically designed to provide housing to retiring or retired Central Government Employees who were Kashmiri migrants. It emphasized that the petitioners had neither applied for the scheme within the stipulated timeframe nor met its eligibility criteria. The DDA submitted that only 12 flats were allotted under the Second Scheme, and the remaining flats had been closed to applications due to lack of demand.
The respondents also argued that the petitioners had misrepresented facts, particularly by falsely claiming to have applied for the Second Scheme. This misrepresentation, they contended, rendered the petition inadmissible. They further pointed out that policy decisions, such as the formulation of distinct housing schemes, were matters of executive discretion and could not be interfered with by the judiciary unless they violated constitutional principles.
The Court noted significant discrepancies in the petitioners’ claims. Although the petitioners initially asserted that they had applied under the Second Scheme, their counsel later admitted that none of them had submitted applications. This contradiction undermined the credibility of their case, and the court deemed their petition as a misrepresentation of facts.
The Court observed that the two schemes were fundamentally different in scope and purpose. While the First Scheme was a rehabilitation initiative targeting vulnerable Kashmiri migrants, the Second Scheme aimed to provide housing to a specific subset of Kashmiri migrants who were retiring or retired Central Government Employees. The petitioners’ attempt to equate the two schemes was dismissed as baseless, as the eligibility criteria and financial terms of the Second Scheme were aligned with its distinct objectives.
The Court reiterated that judicial interference in policy matters is limited to examining their legality, not their wisdom or fairness. The Court found that the Second Scheme’s terms, such as limiting hire-purchase options to employees retiring within five years, were rationally connected to its purpose and did not violate constitutional rights.
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had failed to establish any legal right or entitlement under the Second Scheme and concluded that the Second Scheme’s terms were reasonable and designed to meet its specific objectives. The Court emphasized that the petitioners’ claims were not only without merit but also compromised by their misrepresentation of facts, which amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.
[Tej Kishan v. UOI, W.P.(C) 7977/2007, decided on 06-12-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Man
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Abhimanyu and Ms. Ishani Pillai,
Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocates for UOI Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel for DDA
The post appeared first on .