1987 (12) TMI 330 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the revised policy for allotment of industrial sites.
2. Right to take possession of bigger plots.
3. Validity of the premium rate for allotment.
4. Application of Rule 8 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973.
5. Doctrine of promissory estoppel.
6. Allegation of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Revised Policy for Allotment of Industrial Sites:
The revised policy of the Chandigarh administration for allotment of industrial sites for printing presses was challenged. Initially, 43 larger sites in Industrial Area Phase-II were earmarked, but due to the high number of applicants, the administration revised the policy to allot smaller sites in Industrial Area Phase-I. The High Court found nothing illegal in the revised policy, and the Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the administration's action was bona fide and there was no evidence to suggest enough plots were available in Phase-II to accommodate all applicants.

2. Right to Take Possession of Bigger Plots:
The appellants contended they had a right to the bigger plots as lots were drawn in their favor. However, the Supreme Court held that no such right existed as there was no official communication of allotment as required under Rule 8(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. The intimation of allotment must be sent by registered letter with particulars of the site, which was not done in this case.

3. Validity of the Premium Rate for Allotment:
The High Court directed that the premium rate should be Rs. 15 per square yard, not Rs. 35 per square yard, as initially demanded by the administration. The Supreme Court upheld this direction, noting that the appellants were not responsible for the delay in allotment, which was due to the administration's change in policy. There was no evidence that the administration incurred more expenditure for forming new sites in Phase-I.

4. Application of Rule 8 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973:
Rule 8 outlines the procedure for allotment, requiring an application with 10% of the premium as earnest money. The Supreme Court clarified that the use of "shall" in Rule 8(3) does not create a mandatory obligation to allot a site to every applicant. The right of an applicant is only to have their application considered, not to be allotted a site automatically.

5. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The appellants argued that the administration was estopped from revising the policy after taking steps like demanding 25% of the premium and drawing lots. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, stating that there was no specific assurance or representation made by the authorities promising to allot the sites applied for. Even if such an assurance was made, it would not give rise to promissory estoppel as the authorities cannot make promises contrary to statutory rules.

6. Allegation of Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The appellants claimed the revised policy was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification. The appellants formed a separate class of applicants for industrial sites for printing presses and were considered together. The administration's action was not arbitrary as it was based on the availability of sites and was intended to accommodate as many applicants as possible.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming the High Court's judgment. The revised policy was found to be legal, the appellants had no right to the bigger plots, the premium rate was correctly directed to be Rs. 15 per square yard, and the administration's actions were not arbitrary or discriminatory.