2010 (8) TMI 932 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a new plea on facts could be agitated before the Writ Court? Whether High Court ought to have examined the issue in the correct perspective, as respondent No. 1 did not controvert the plea taken by the appellants of sending the allotment letter by Registered Post?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's decision to set aside the orders of the Revisional and Appellate Authorities and the statutory authority's cancellation of the suit plot.
2. Whether the respondent No.1 received the allotment letter and if the cancellation was justified.
3. The procedural fairness in the High Court's handling of the writ petition.
4. Presumption of receipt of letters sent by registered post.
5. Legal implications of non-communication of orders.
6. Examination of the High Court's decision-making process and its adherence to legal principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Decision:
The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment that quashed the orders of the Revisional and Appellate Authorities and the statutory authority's cancellation of the suit plot. The High Court's decision was based on the ground that the allotment letter was not sent to the correct person at the correct address, relying solely on the receipt and dispatch register of the authority.

2. Receipt of Allotment Letter and Justification of Cancellation:
The respondent No.1 applied for a flat under a hire purchase scheme and was allocated an M.I.G. flat. She was informed of the allocation and the tentative cost, but did not respond to the allotment letter nor deposit any amount. The appellant-authority canceled the allotment due to non-payment. The respondent contested the cancellation, claiming she did not receive the allotment letter. However, the Revisional Authority noted that the respondent admitted financial difficulties and inability to arrange funds, implying awareness of her liability.

3. Procedural Fairness in High Court's Handling:
The High Court allowed the writ petition without giving the appellant-authority a proper opportunity to file a reply or produce material to counter the respondent's claims. The High Court proceeded hastily, deciding the case within 26 days of its filing, which was deemed arbitrary.

4. Presumption of Receipt of Letters Sent by Registered Post:
The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of receipt under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 114 Ill.(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellants provided evidence that the allotment letter was sent by registered post to the correct address. The High Court failed to consider this presumption adequately.

5. Legal Implications of Non-Communication of Orders:
The Supreme Court reiterated that an order does not become effective unless communicated to the concerned party. Mere draw of lots or allocation does not confer a legal right to allotment. The respondent's failure to respond to the allotment letter and deposit the required amount meant no concluded contract existed.

6. Examination of High Court's Decision-Making Process:
The High Court's decision was criticized for not examining the case in the correct perspective, ignoring the appellants' evidence of sending the allotment letter by registered post. The High Court entertained a new factual plea raised by the respondent without giving the appellants an opportunity to counter it, which was procedurally improper.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the orders of the Revisional and Appellate Authorities and the statutory authority's cancellation of the allotment. The High Court's decision was deemed procedurally unfair and arbitrary, lacking proper examination of the evidence and legal principles. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →