Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhojappa K, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of certain portions of the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983, as amended by the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2017. Specifically, the challenge was directed against Category A and Category C in the table forming part of substituted Regulation 4, and Category C of the table forming part of Regulation 9A. The petitioner argued that the classification of persons for reservation of houses/sites based on income and location was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents, the State of Karnataka and the Karnataka Housing Board, defended the amendment, contending that the classification was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object of providing housing to different income groups and employees in various locations. The High Court, after hearing the parties, examined the impugned regulations. The Court noted that Regulation 4 provides for reservation of houses/sites for specified classes of persons, including employees in any office or establishment in the city, town, or other places. The amendment introduced categories based on income and location, which the Court found to be based on intelligible differentia. The Court held that the classification was not arbitrary and had a rational nexus with the objective of equitable distribution of housing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutional validity of the amended regulations. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Mohammad Nawaz on 18th October 2019.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Challenge to amendment of Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983 - The petitioner contended that the classification of persons for reservation of houses/sites based on income and location is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court held that the classification is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of providing housing to different income groups and employees in various locations. The amendment was upheld as constitutional. (Paras 1-10) B) Housing Law - Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983 - Regulation 4 and 9A - Reservation of Houses/Sites - The amendment substituted Regulation 4 and 9A, creating categories A, B, C for reservation. The Court examined the classification and found it reasonable, as it distinguishes between employees of different establishments and income groups, serving the purpose of equitable distribution of housing. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to Regulation 4 (Category A and C) and Regulation 9A(3) (Category C) of the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned amendment to Regulation 4 (Category A and C) and Regulation 9A(3) (Category C) of the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983, is held to be constitutional and not violative of Article 14.
Law Points
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Reasonable Classification
- Housing Board Allotment Regulations
- Reservation of Houses/Sites
- Income-based Classification
- Location-based Classification
