Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the allotment of two super deluxe flats by HEWO Society to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The appellant, a member of HEWO, alleged favoritism and ineligibility in the allotments. The High Court had dismissed the petition, citing estoppel due to the appellant's participation in the draw of lots. The Supreme Court examined the society's bye-laws and found that preferential allotment to a governing body member (respondent No. 3) was not permissible as it violated eligibility criteria. The allotment to respondent No. 4 through a draw of lots was also scrutinized. The Court held that the allotments were arbitrary and lacked transparency, violating principles of fairness. It affirmed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, noting the society's connection to government-allotted land and government employee members. The appeal was allowed, quashing the allotments and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Headnote
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the allotment of two super deluxe flats by HEWO Society to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 -- The Court held that the allotment was arbitrary and violated the society's bye-laws, as preferential allotment to a governing body member was impermissible without eligibility -- The Court affirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against HEWO Society due to lack of transparency and fairness, especially since the land was allotted by the government and members are government employees -- The Court rejected the defense of estoppel, noting that the appellant's participation in the draw of lots did not preclude challenge to arbitrary actions -- The Court emphasized the fiduciary duty of ex officio members in the Governing Body to act for the common good, eschewing favoritism and bias
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the allotment of super deluxe flats by HEWO Society to its governing body member and another member was arbitrary and violative of bye-laws, and whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a private society
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the allotment of super deluxe flats to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and remanded the matter to HEWO Society for fresh consideration in accordance with bye-laws and principles of fairness
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- 1950 (Constitution) -- Article 12 of the Constitution of India
- 1950 (Constitution) -- Societies Registration Act
- 1860 (Societies Act) -- Principles of fairness
- transparency
- and accountability in administrative action -- Doctrine of estoppel -- Fiduciary duty of government officers in ex officio capacities
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (02) 41
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16057 of 2025)
SANJAY KUMAR J. , K. VINOD CHANDRAN J.
Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Mr. Alok Sangwan, Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande
The State of Haryana and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal arising from a writ petition challenging the allotment of super deluxe flats by HEWO Society
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the allotment of flats to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, alleging favoritism and violation of bye-laws
Filing Reason
The appellant, a member of HEWO, challenged the allotments as arbitrary and biased, claiming the beneficiaries were ineligible
Previous Decisions
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant was estopped from challenging the allotment due to participation in the draw of lots
Issues
Whether the allotment of super deluxe flats by HEWO Society to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was arbitrary and violative of the society's bye-laws
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against HEWO Society, a private entity
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the allotments were arbitrary and biased, with respondent No. 3 being a governing body member granted preferential allotment in violation of bye-laws
The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as HEWO is a private society not falling under Article 12, and the allotments were as per rules, with the appellant estopped due to participation
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that preferential allotment to a governing body member without eligibility violates bye-laws and is arbitrary -- Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against private societies when there is lack of transparency and fairness, especially involving government-allotted land and government employee members -- Participation in a draw of lots does not estop a member from challenging arbitrary allotments -- Ex officio members in governing bodies have a fiduciary duty to act fairly and transparently
Judgment Excerpts
Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court after setting out the facts and the respective contentions found invocation of Article 226 to be proper
Immediately we should notice that such preferential allotment cannot be made, even if it be made to a governing body member, who does not satisfy the eligibility criteria of membership, which would then be violative of the bye-laws of the Society
Procedural History
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the allotment of flats by HEWO Society -- The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition -- The appellant filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which was converted into a civil appeal -- The Supreme Court heard arguments and allowed the appeal
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226, Article 12
- Societies Registration Act, 1860: Not specified
