1995 (4) TMI 318 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Floor Space Index (FSI) amendment.
2. Doctrine of promissory estoppel.
3. Legality of the agreement between the appellant and respondent No. 1.
4. Availability of writ of mandamus to the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Floor Space Index (FSI) Amendment:
The appellant, a firm engaged in building and development, entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1, a Government Company, for a commercial plot in New Bombay. Initially, the FSI for the plot was set at 1, but respondent No. 1 proposed an amendment to increase it to 2. This proposal was awaiting approval from the State Government. However, the State Government later sanctioned an increase in FSI to only 1.50. The Court emphasized that the prior sanction of the State Government is essential for any final Development plan or minor modifications thereof under Sections 31 and 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Thus, the agreement regarding FSI did not bestow any legal right upon the appellant until such sanction was obtained.

2. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The appellant argued that the prescription of FSI was an administrative decision taken by respondent No. 1 and that the agreement should be honored based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the FSI fixation becomes legally binding only after the State Government's approval. Therefore, any agreement made without this approval is not legally enforceable. The Court further noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot compel public bodies to carry out promises that are contrary to law or beyond their authority.

3. Legality of the Agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1:
The Court found that the agreement between the appellant and respondent No. 1 regarding the FSI was not legally valid as it lacked the necessary approval from the State Government. The Court highlighted that any modification to the final Development plan, including changes in FSI, requires the State Government's sanction. The agreement, therefore, could not bestow any legal right upon the appellant without such sanction.

4. Availability of Writ of Mandamus to the Appellant:
The appellant sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondent No. 1 and the State of Maharashtra to withdraw or cancel the impugned notification and enforce the original agreement. The Court dismissed this request, stating that the appellant did not have a legally protected and judicially enforceable right to claim such a writ. The Court reiterated that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to enforce an agreement that was contrary to statutory provisions.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the reliefs sought by the appellant were not available, as the agreement regarding the FSI was not legally enforceable without the State Government's approval. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.