9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 669 - SC - Indian LawsSuits for declaration and specific performance - retired industrial workers - allotted service quarters - transfer the allotted houses on ownership basis to the occupants (plaintiffs) - Scope of Resolution passed by the Board of Delhi Transport Corporation ( DTC ) - land belonging to DTC for residential accommodation - declaration of entitlement to the transfer of properties - whether the plaintiffs could compel transfer of tenements in their favour on the basis of promissory estoppel - HELD THAT - In our view the conduct of DTC cannot be faulted. Moreover, as stated, the decision to allot the tenements on ownership basis vide Resolution dated 31.8.1979 was a tentative decision. There was no contract entered into by DTC with any individual workman. DTC was a lessee. DDA was a lessor. DTC had to work out the cost-benefit ratios with DDA. That exercise was never undertaken. Not a single communication was ever sent by DTC to the plaintiffs. No formal sale-conditions were ever fixed or communicated by DTC to the plaintiffs. None of the plaintiffs was ever asked to pay to DTC the final sale consideration amount. In the circumstances, Resolution dated 31.8.1979 was a tentative decision and not a final and binding decision as alleged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said Resolution created a legal right by itself. We do not find any bias, discrimination or arbitrariness in Resolution of DTC bearing dated 3.12.1979 by which DTC recalled its earlier decision. DTC used to make losses. The replacement cost had shot up to ₹ 3 crores. The number of industrial workers to be accommodated had risen drastically. Against 480 tenements DTC had industrial workforce of 5000 employees (in-service). They had to be accommodated. Even the Central Government concurred with DTC in its decision not to implement the Scheme. The Scheme was an enabling scheme. It was not mandatory. DTC was not obliged to sell the tenements under the Scheme. The Government of India had funded DTC to a very small extent. DTC was in fact required to repay the loan taken from the Government of India with interest. In the circumstances, it was open to DTC to recall its decision of allotting the two colonies by way of sale to the occupants. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned Resolution dated 2.3.1981 passed by DTC of not selling the tenements was in any way arbitrary, biased or discriminatory. We also do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that relying on the promise of DTC they altered their position to their prejudice by not opting for purchase under some other housing schemes. That, they did not buy the flat elsewhere all these years. There is no merit in the above contention. Resolution dated 31.8.1979 approving the sale was deferred on 3.12.1979 by the Chairman pointing out the above difficulties. Moreover no communication was ever sent to appellants individually calling upon them to make payment. Hence there was no representation as alleged. In the present case, the plaintiffs have sought a remedy which is discretionary. They have instituted the suit u/s 34 of the 1963 Act. The discretion which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has to consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiffs. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance, the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for Snell s Equity . In the present case, applying the above test, we do not find an iota of mutuality. There is no contract between DTC and the plaintiffs. There is no communication at any point of time between DTC and the plaintiffs. No sale consideration was ever fixed. The plaintiffs were never called upon to make payment. The decision to allot remained tentative. In the circumstances, neither contract nor equity existed at any point of time so as to compel DTC to convey the tenements to the plaintiffs. Whether the plaintiffs could compel transfer of tenements in their favour on the basis of promissory estoppel - We find that in the present case the doctrine of promissory estoppel had no application. On balancing of equities we are of the view that DTC which is a public sector undertaking had to act in public interest in the sense that had to keep the transport service running for which they had to accommodate in-service industrial workers which they could not have done if it had to sell the existing service quarters to the retirees. In the circumstances, the Division Bench was right in setting aside the decree passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the civil appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and impact of DTC Resolutions No. 55/79, 139/79, 179/79, and 35/81. 2. Alleged creation of legal rights under the resolutions. 3. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 4. Consideration of public interest versus individual rights. Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope and Impact of DTC Resolutions: The case revolves around several resolutions passed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). The plaintiffs argued that Resolution No. 139/79 dated 31.8.1979 created a legal right for them to acquire ownership of tenements. The DTC later rescinded this decision through Resolution No. 179/79 dated 3.12.1979 and Resolution No. 35/81 dated 2.3.1981, citing increased costs and financial constraints. 2. Alleged Creation of Legal Rights: The plaintiffs contended that the resolutions, particularly those dated 18.4.1979 and 31.8.1979, created a legal right for them to purchase the tenements. They argued that DTC's subsequent resolutions rescinding this decision were arbitrary and without sufficient cause. However, the court found that these resolutions were tentative and did not constitute a binding contract. No formal communication or sale conditions were ever finalized or communicated to the plaintiffs, and thus no legal right was established. 3. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The plaintiffs based their case on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that they had altered their position to their detriment based on DTC's promise to sell the tenements. The court, however, held that promissory estoppel is based on equity and not on vested rights. It requires a balance between individual rights and larger public interest. The court found that DTC's decision was driven by public interest considerations, such as the need to accommodate in-service employees and financial constraints. Therefore, the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case. 4. Consideration of Public Interest versus Individual Rights: The court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights against larger public interest. DTC, being a public sector undertaking, had to consider its financial viability and the need to house its in-service employees. The court noted that DTC was facing significant financial losses and had a pressing need to accommodate a large number of industrial workers. These considerations justified DTC's decision to rescind the earlier resolutions promising the sale of tenements to the plaintiffs. Conclusion: The court dismissed the civil appeal, upholding the Division Bench's decision to set aside the decree passed by the learned Single Judge. The court found that the resolutions did not create a binding legal right for the plaintiffs and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply due to overriding public interest considerations. The plaintiffs' arguments were not sufficient to compel DTC to transfer the tenements to them.
|
