2007 (12) TMI 551 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legal right to allotment of flats.
2. Central Government's authority to direct allotment.
3. Applicability of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel.
4. Validity of administrative orders and guidelines.

Summary:

1. Legal right to allotment of flats:
The appellants registered under the Fifth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982, did not respond to a public notice for allotment of flats and later declined the Category-III flats allotted to them. They sought inclusion in subsequent schemes, which was denied. The Consumer Disputes Redressal District Forum initially ruled in their favor, but the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission overturned this decision, citing Clause 16 of the Brochure which allowed the respondent to withdraw the Scheme at any time.

2. Central Government's authority to direct allotment:
The appellants argued that the Central Government could direct allotment u/s 41 read with Section 56(2)(r) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. However, the court held that Section 41 only allows the Central Government to issue directions for efficient administration of the Act, not for specific allotments. The Central Government does not have a quota under the Act or the Scheme, and any direction for allotment must have a nexus with the efficient administration of the Act, which was not the case here.

3. Applicability of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel:
The appellants invoked the principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel, arguing that the letter dated 24.08.2000 from the Central Government created a legitimate expectation of allotment. The court rejected this, stating that Legitimate Expectation cannot be based on an illegal or unconstitutional order. The letter did not confer any legal right as it was not issued within the jurisdiction of the Central Government under the Act.

4. Validity of administrative orders and guidelines:
The court emphasized that guidelines are advisory and do not confer legal rights unless backed by statutory provisions. The purported letter from the Central Government directing allotment was beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to the constitutional scheme. The court cited various precedents to support the principle that administrative actions must adhere to the standards and procedures established by law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the appellants' claims. The Central Government's direction for allotment was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction, and the principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel were not applicable in this case.