The Supreme Court of India has set aside the allotment of two “super deluxe” flats made by a Haryana government employees’ welfare society, holding that the process was vitiated by nepotism, arbitrariness, and abuse of power.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has observed that even if preferential allotment to a Governing Body member was contemplated by a prior decision, such preference could not override mandatory eligibility conditions laid down in the bye-laws.
The dispute arose from the allotment of two super deluxe flats by the HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO), a society formed to provide housing facilities to serving and retired employees of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), also known as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP).
The appellant, Dinesh Kumar, who had completed 14 years on deputation with HUDA, challenged the allotment after one flat was granted on a preferential basis to a Governing Body member (Respondent No. 3) and the other was allotted through draw of lots to Respondent No. 4.
He alleged that both allotments violated the society’s bye-laws and were the result of favoritism.
The Court found that the required deputation was not completed on the last date of application. He had not submitted an application or deposited the required earnest money within the prescribed timeline. The allotment letter was issued in a manner that the Court described as “a complete farce.”
Calling the act a “blatant display of self-aggrandizement,” the Court ruled the allotment illegal.
With respect to Respondent No. 4, the Court observed that he did not satisfy the stipulated pay-band level criteria. The Governing Body’s later attempt to regularise the allotment by carving out an exception was rejected as arbitrary and unsupported by the rules.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier dismissed the challenge on the ground that the appellant had participated in the draw of lots and was therefore estopped from questioning the process. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that participation does not validate an illegal or arbitrary process.
The Court emphasized that although HEWO is a registered society, it functions with government land, comprises government employees, and includes ex officio public officials in its Governing Body. Therefore, it must adhere to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, and accountability.
The Court imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on HEWO, Rs. 50,000 on governing body member and Rs. 25,000 on the subordinate of governing body member.
It directed refund of the amounts deposited by governing body members and ordered them to vacate the premises within one month. A fresh draw of lots is to be conducted among eligible applicants.
Case Details
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Versus The State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-02-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.16057 of 2025
Date: 17/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Pradeep Dahiya
Counsel For Respondent: Shadan Farasat
