9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimate Expectation 2. Change in Government Policy 3. Promissory Estoppel 4. Procedural Fairness 5. Public Auction vs. Individual Application Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimate Expectation: The petitioner argued that his application for land allotment, made under the 1970 Resolution, gave rise to a legitimate expectation that it would be considered under that policy. The court examined the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which is recognized as part of the principles of natural justice. It was noted that legitimate expectation does not confer a legal right but expects fair treatment by administrative authorities. The court cited several precedents, including *Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries* and *Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation*, to illustrate that while legitimate expectation must be considered, it cannot override a change in policy made in the public interest. 2. Change in Government Policy: The court observed that the policy for land allotment changed in 1991, requiring public auctions instead of individual applications. It was emphasized that such changes, aimed at ensuring transparency and maximizing public revenue, are in the larger public interest. The court held that the petitioner could not claim a right to have his application considered under the old policy when the new policy mandated public auctions. The court referenced *State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav*, where a change in eligibility rules for government posts was upheld despite candidates' expectations based on earlier rules. 3. Promissory Estoppel: The petitioner contended that the acceptance of his earnest money created an assurance of allotment, invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court clarified that promissory estoppel requires a clear promise leading to a detriment. In this case, no such promise was made, and the mere acceptance of earnest money did not constitute an assurance of allotment. The court distinguished this from the case of *Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Dharmendra Trading Co.*, where benefits under an incentive scheme were curtailed after industries had already been established based on the scheme's promise. 4. Procedural Fairness: The petitioner argued that the delay in considering his application was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court noted that the application was for a proposed housing society that had not been registered, and thus, no proper application by an existing person was made. The court emphasized that procedural fairness requires applications to be considered as per the prevailing policy, which, in this case, had changed to require public auctions. The court found no arbitrariness in the state's action or inaction. 5. Public Auction vs. Individual Application: The court upheld the state's decision to change the land allotment policy to public auctions, highlighting that public auctions are the best method to ensure transparency and fetch the highest price for public assets. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that his application should be considered under the old policy, noting that the new policy was in the public interest and aimed at preventing clandestine dealings. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no legitimate expectation or right to have his application considered under the old policy once the new policy requiring public auctions was in place. The court found no basis for promissory estoppel or procedural unfairness, and emphasized the importance of public interest and transparency in state actions. The rule was discharged, and the petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of the petition.
|
