SUPREME COURT QUASHES NEPOTISTIC FLAT ALLOTMENT IN HEWO CASE
CASE SUMMARY – In Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court examined arbitrary allotment of housing flats by HEWO. A governing body member was granted preferential allotment despite being ineligible, and another beneficiary did not satisfy prescribed pay-band criteria. The Court held that such favoritism violated principles of fairness, transparency, and fiduciary duty. It affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was maintainable due to public character and governmental nexus. The Court set aside the High Court judgment, cancelled the allotments, imposed monetary costs on responsible parties, and ordered a fresh draw of lots, reinforcing accountability in public welfare housing schemes.
| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2026 INSC 163) |
| Introduction | The case concerns alleged nepotism and favoritism in allotment of super deluxe flats by HEWO (Employees Welfare Organization linked with HUDA/HSVP). |
| Factual Background | Two super deluxe flats became available. One was allotted preferentially to a Governing Body member (Respondent No.3) and the other through draw of lots to Respondent No.4. The appellant challenged the allotments alleging arbitrariness, ineligibility, and favoritism. |
| Legal Issues | 1. Whether writ under Article 226 is maintainable against HEWO? 2. Whether preferential allotment violated society bye-laws? 3. Whether allotments were arbitrary and mala fide? |
| Applicable Law | Article 12 & 226 of the Constitution of India; Societies Registration Act, 1860; Principles of administrative fairness, transparency, fiduciary duty. |
| Analysis | The Court found Respondent No.3 was ineligible (not fulfilling deputation requirement and no timely application). Respondent No.4 did not meet pay-band eligibility. Governing Body acted arbitrarily, showing favoritism and abuse of power. |
| Conclusion | Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment, cancelled allotments, imposed costs, and ordered fresh draw of lots. |
| Current Scenario | Flats to be re-allotted via fresh draw among eligible candidates. Deposited amounts to be refunded. Costs imposed on respondents. |
“Public office demands transparency, not favoritism.”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Discover insighs on Latin Maxims and Legal Glossary and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.The LawGist ensures exam success with quality Blogs and Articles on — Top Legal Picks (TLP), Current Affairs, latest Supreme Court judgments as Courtroom Chronicles.
