Enforceability of Governing‐Body Resolutions in Employee Welfare Societies for Allotment of Public Assets

Introduction

This case arises from a challenge by Mr. Yashendra Singh (“the petitioner”), a former and serving officer of HUDA (now HSVP), to the refusal of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (“HSVP”) and the HUDA Employees Welfare Organization (“HEWO”) to allot him a Super‑Deluxe category flat in Faridabad. In 2005 he enrolled for a Super‑Deluxe flat under the HEWO Scheme‑II and deposited earnest money, but was initially allotted only a Deluxe flat. In a governing‑body meeting on 8 January 2018 HEWO resolved that as soon as surplus Super‑Deluxe flats became available in the re‑planning exercise, the petitioner’s membership would be upgraded. Yet despite the subsequent availability of surplus units and his accrued eligibility, HEWO floated the flats afresh by a letter dated 13 April 2021, inviting all members to apply by draw of lots. The petitioner seeks quashing of that letter and specific performance of the 2018 resolution.

Summary of the Judgment

The Punjab & Haryana High Court (Coram: Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Vikas Suri) held that:

HEWO, though a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, holds public land and must adhere to principles of transparency, fairness and legitimate expectation in allotment.
The 8 January 2018 governing‑body resolution clearly entitles the petitioner to the first surplus Super‑Deluxe flat in Scheme‑II upon re‑planning.
Despite an increase in Super‑Deluxe units post re‑planning and the petitioner meeting pay‑norm eligibility, HEWO violated its own resolution by floating the flats for draw of lots.
The petition is allowed in part: the impugned 13 April 2021 letter is set aside with a direction to refund the petitioner’s earnest money with 8% interest and to pay Rs. 5 lakhs compensation for the delay and anxiety caused.
HEWO is further directed to complete re‑planning and increase the Super‑Deluxe inventory, and to offer the petitioner the next surplus unit in accordance with the 2018 resolution.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the Judgment does not quote specific Supreme Court decisions by name, it proceeds on well‑established doctrines:

Legitimate Expectation (R. Karuppan v. Union of India): A public or quasi‑public body must respect its own policy decisions and resolutions when they create a bona fide expectation in an individual.
Fairness and Transparency in Allotment of Public Assets (Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India): Allotment of public land or buildings must follow clear, non‑arbitrary procedures and must not be manipulated in breach of announced rules.
Article 12 State Action (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Ahmed): Even societies registered under Societies Registration Act may fall within the ambit of “State” when managing public land or executing statutory functions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning advances several principles:

HEWO’s use of public land converts it into a public or quasi‑public instrumentality bound by Article 12.
An internal governing‑body resolution (8 Jan 2018) is binding on HEWO as a matter of corporate governance and procedural fairness once communicated to the affected member.
The respondent’s sudden shift in 2021 to floating a draw of lots for flats, when a known eligible claimant awaited allotment, amounted to arbitrary conduct and violated legitimate expectation.
Where delay or breach of procedure causes hardship, the Court is empowered under Article 226 to direct compensation and specific performance of the resolution.

Impact

This Judgment underscores that employee welfare societies holding public land cannot override their own internal decisions or resolutions merely by re‑advertising allotments. Future cases will cite it when:

Claimants rely on a specific governing‑body or board resolution to secure rights in public property.
Societies or bodies registered under private enactments exercise public functions or deploy public assets.
Courts balance the remedy of specific performance and compensation for breach of legitimate expectation against the equities of completed allotments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Legitimate Expectation: When a public body makes a promise or policy, individuals who rely on it can claim enforcement or compensation if the body later reneges.
Re‑planning: A statutory or administrative exercise by which land use, density or housing categories are reviewed and the number of units in each category may be increased or altered.
Article 12 Entity: A private entity becomes subject to constitutional remedies if it performs a public function or uses public money or land.
Specific Performance of Resolutions: Ordinarily an internal corporate resolution is enforced by arbitration or civil suit; but where public land is at stake and constitutional fairness principles apply, a writ court may order compliance.

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling establishes that welfare societies administering public land must adhere faithfully to their own governance decisions. A clear resolution upgrading a member’s housing category creates a legal right enforceable by constitutional writ. Arbitrary re‑advertisement that undermines this right breaches principles of legitimate expectation, fairness and transparency. The remedy of refund with interest plus compensation reinforces that public bodies cannot shirk their announced commitments without judicial scrutiny. This Judgment strengthens the protection of employee‑members of public welfare societies and guides future allotment practices across India.