In a sharp rebuke to backroom privilege, the Supreme Court of India has torn up the allotment of two high-end flats in a Haryana government housing society, calling the exercise a textbook case of favouritism dressed up as procedure.
The Court did not mince words. Nepotism and self-promotion, it said, have no place in a democratic system—least of all inside a society meant for public servants. What unfolded, according to the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, was not an administrative oversight but an orchestrated misuse of position.
A Flat for the Boss — By the Boss
The dispute began within the HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organisation (HEWO), after two “super deluxe” flats became available following cancellation of earlier memberships. Instead of opting for a transparent draw of lots, the governing body chose a preferential route.
One of the flats ultimately found its way to a senior officer who, at the crucial cut-off date for applications, was neither eligible nor even a member of the society. He assumed office later, thereby becoming part of the governing body, and soon after sought allotment of the cancelled flat. The approval followed swiftly.
The problem? On the last date for applications and earnest money deposit, he was not an employee of the housing authority, not a governing body member, and had not applied or paid the required fees. In a move the Court described as turning the process into a “complete farce,” the officer issued the allotment communication to himself—signing in his official capacity and receiving it in his personal one.
The Court found this retrospective stretching of eligibility wholly impermissible. Preferential treatment cannot be invented after the fact, particularly for someone who did not even meet the baseline requirements on the prescribed date.
The Subordinate’s Turn
The second flat went to an accountant working directly under the same senior officer. Though a draw of lots was cited, the Court found glaring irregularities in the application: missing dates, absent payment details, and non-compliance with the stipulated pay-band criteria. He did not fall within the required pay band, making him ineligible from the outset.
The Bench noted that the senior officer’s entry into the authority not only smoothed his own path to a flat but also paved the way for his subordinate’s selection. The chain of advantage was too convenient to ignore.
High Court Order Set Aside
Earlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had declined to interfere with the allotments. That view has now been overturned. The Supreme Court cancelled both allotments and ordered the society to conduct a fresh draw strictly among eligible applicants.
Costs were imposed as well: ₹1 lakh on the society, ₹50,000 on the senior officer who secured the self-allotment, and ₹25,000 on the subordinate beneficiary. The allottees have been directed to vacate the flats after refund of the amounts paid.
A Message Beyond Two Flats
At its core, the ruling travels beyond housing disputes. It speaks to institutional integrity. When those entrusted with governance bend rules to benefit themselves or their circle, the Court signalled, it corrodes the very idea of public service.
The appeal filed by Dinesh Kumar has thus resulted in more than just cancelled keys—it has triggered a reminder that public office is not a private entitlement.
