New Delhi (ABC Live) — At first glance, the dispute in Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Others looked like a narrow fight over two Super Deluxe flats. However, once the Supreme Court examined the record, the case became a much larger test of constitutional accountability in government-linked welfare societies.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment and cancelled both allotments. Moreover, it held that favouritism, ineligibility, and abuse of authority had driven the decisions. Most importantly, the ruling reaffirmed that public power cannot hide behind private institutional form.

The Dispute in Numbers

To begin with, the case involved a very small and clearly identifiable pool of applicants.

Therefore, when insiders received both available flats, the numbers themselves raised an alarm. In other words, those who controlled the institution captured a scarce public-linked resource.

How the Allotments Unfolded: A Timeline

Next, the chronology showed how officials bypassed eligibility norms.

Crucially, Respondent No.3 joined HSVP after the cut-off date. As a result, he never met basic eligibility.

Why Respondent No.3 Failed Eligibility

The Supreme Court focused on concrete facts rather than internal resolutions.

Respondent No.3:

• Did not serve in HSVP on the cut-off date
• Did not complete six months of deputation
• Did not file a timely application
• Did not deposit earnest money on time

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the preference for governing body members could not apply. Put simply, preference cannot create eligibility.

Why Respondent No.4 Also Failed Eligibility

Similarly, Respondent No.4 failed basic requirements.

He:

• Did not fall within the required pay band
• Filed an incomplete application
• Relied on later regularisation

However, the Court rejected this approach. Specifically, it held that later approval cannot cure initial illegality.

High Court vs Supreme Court: A Sharp Contrast

At this point, the divergence between the two courts became clear.

In contrast, the Punjab & Haryana High Court Order relied on participation in the draw of lots. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court examined eligibility and chronology.

Participation Does Not Cure Illegality

The High Court reasoned that the petitioner participated in the draw. Therefore, it said he could not challenge the outcome.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this logic. Otherwise, authorities could shield illegal processes from review simply because candidates took part.

Therefore, participation does not validate an illegal process.

Data Shows a Pattern of Insider Capture

When we look at the numbers together, the pattern becomes unavoidable.

Consequently, the Court concluded that coincidence could not explain these outcomes.

What the Supreme Court Ordered

As a result, the Court directed:

• Cancel both allotments
• Refund money and evict beneficiaries
• Conduct a fresh draw among eligible applicants
• Impose monetary costs

Notably, these directions create real deterrence.

Why This Judgment Matters

First, welfare societies that handle public land remain accountable.
Second, eligibility rules bind authorities.
Third, internal resolutions cannot override fairness.
Finally, courts will rely more on data and timelines.

The Larger Message

Ultimately, this case delivers a simple principle:

Public power cannot hide behind private form.

Therefore, when numbers reveal total non-compliance and insider domination, courts must intervene.

ABC Live Editor’s Note

Importantly, this case shows how insider capture can quietly grow inside employee welfare bodies that manage public land. By shifting focus from narrative justification to data-based scrutiny, the Supreme Court strengthened constitutional accountability. As India relies more on societies and special-purpose vehicles, this ruling sends a clear warning: constitutional standards always follow public power.

Also, Read DSLA Critical Analysis of Sc Judgment 

Explained: How the Supreme Court Clarifies Abatement in Property Appeals