9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e directly necessitating its closure - DDA rejected appellants' prayer - High Court having dismissed both the appeals. HELD THAT:- We find it difficult to hold that the recommendation of the Technical Committee of the DDA fructified into an order conferring legal right upon the appellants. From the notings of the Commissioner and the order of the Vice Chairman, it is manifest that although there were several notings which recommended consideration of the appellants' case for relocation but finally no official communication was addressed to or received by the appellants accepting their claim. Thus, It is clear that though the proposals had the recommendations of State Level Co-ordinator (oil industry) and the Technical Committee but these did not ultimately fructify into an order or decision of the DDA, conferring any legal rights upon the appellants. This Court in Punjab Communications Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.[ 1999 (5) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT] , referring to a large number of authorities on the question, observed that a change in policy can defeat a substantive legitimate expectation if it can be justified on Wednesbury reasonableness . The decision mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adv., R.S. Suri and Mohd. Wasay Khan For the Respondent : A. Sharan, ASG., Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya and Co.), H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, V.M. Chaudhary, Priya Puri, Parijat Sinha, Reshmi Rea Sinha, S.C. Ghosh and Snehasish Mukhrjee JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J:- 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against a common judgment and order rendered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 6th February, 2006 in Letters Patent Appeals No. 2715 and 2722 of 2005. By the impugned order, the appeals preferred by the two appellants herein, under Clause X of the Letters Patent have been dismissed. 3. The appellant firms, M/s Sethi Auto Service Station and M/s Anand Service Station own two petrol outlets adjacent to each other, located at NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi since 1994. The land for the purpose was allotted by the Airport Authority of India (for short Aai') Whereas The Petrol Pumps Were Allotted By The Indian Oil Corporation (For Short IOC') and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short HPCL') to Sethi and Anand respectively. According to the appellants, in the year 1999, a proposal was formulated for construction of an eight-lane expres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auctioned. The recommendation of the Screening Committee was considered by the Vice Chairman of DDA, who rejected the proposal for relocation of the two petrol pumps in question. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court. It was pleaded that the State Level Coordinator as well as the DDA having recognised that the two petrol pumps were rendered commercially unviable due to construction of the grid separator, they had a legitimate right to the allotment/relocation of petrol pumps at alternative sites, in terms of the policy of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas formulated in the year 1998 as well as the policy of the DDA of 1999. It was urged that all the requisite conditions for such re-allotment/re-sitement were fulfilled by them and the DDA had also recommended the allotment in May, 2002; which proposal had also been cleared by the Technical Committee and, therefore, the DDA was bound by the said decisions. Moreover, having acted upon its decisions by earmarking the two sites, the decision to withhold allotment and include the two earmarked plots in the proposed auction was unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary and the mere fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the proposal leading to the recommendation by the Technical Committee as it did not amount to an order or decision of the DDA, particularly when its competent authority had rejected the request of the appellants. The learned Judge also observed that at best the appellants had a mere expectation of being considered for re-sitement. The stand of the DDA that in view of the fact that a new policy had been formulated in June, 2003, it was within its right to apply the same was also found to be in order. Thus, the learned Judge found that the DDA had acted fairly and reasonably in rejecting appellants' prayer for re-sitement. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were dismissed. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent as applicable to the High Court of Delhi. Both the appeals having been dismissed, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 9. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, strenuously urged that the representations of the appellants were considered by the DDA in terms of its policy dated 14th October, 1999 and its Technical Committee, headed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department; gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned. 13. In Bachhittar Singh vs. The State of Punjab3, a Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a file, which order was not communicated to the person concerned. Referring to the Article 166(1) of the Constitution, the Court held that order of the Minister could not amount to an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of the Rajpramukh, as required by the said Article and was then communicated to the party concerned. The court observed that business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sals for re-sitement were not finally approved. The learned Judge has also observed that the note dated 21st November, 2003 along with the inspection report and the proposal for re-sitement was put up before the Commissioner (LB) who, on 9th September, 2004 recorded the following comments: However, the basic fact to be noted is that these petrol pumps were allotted on the land of Airport Authority of India and there is no responsibility on the part of the DDA to bear any cost or to carry out resitement for such sites given by any other land owning agency and which are being effected by a project which is being done by a third agency vis National Highway Authority of India with which DDA has no links. This was discussed with VC and PC last week in the context of certain other resitement proposal pending for different areas in Dwarka and it was agreed that the onus of such petrol pump sites on DDA land, does not lie upon DDA particularly in a situation when DDA now has a policy for auction of petrol pump sites. It was, therefore, decided that irrespective of the impact of the proposed Express Way on these petrol pump sites, there is no reason for DDA to take the responsibilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court in a catena of decisions but for the sake of brevity we do not propose to refer to all these cases. Nevertheless, in order to appreciate the concept, we shall refer to a few decisions. At this juncture, we deem it necessary to refer to a decision by the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions and Ors. vs. Minister for the Civil Service5, a locus classicus on the subject, wherein for the first time an attempt was made to give a comprehensive definition to the principle of legitimate expectation. Enunciating the basic principles relating to legitimate expectation, Lord Diplock observed that for a legitimate expectation to arise, the decision of the administrative authority must affect such person either (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either: (i) he has in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until some rational ground for withdrawing it has been communicated to him and he has been given an opportunity to comment thereon or (ii) he has rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider but the court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. It depends very much on the facts and the recognised general principles of administrative law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the courts for the review of administrative action, must be restricted to the general legal limitations applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of administrative power in a particular case. It follows that the concept of legitimate expectation is not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it ought not unlock the gate which shuts the court out of review on the merits , particularly when the element of speculation and uncertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made. (Also see: Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors.12) 26. Very recently in Jitendra Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr.13, it has been reiterated that a legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the public and the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters. 27. An examination of the afore-noted few decisions shows that the golden thread running through all these decisions is that a case for applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, now accepted in the subjective sense as part of our legal jurisprudence, arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation or by past practice or conduct aroused an expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfill unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. However, a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is below the prescribed limit and petrol pump is not feasible in its existing location. 30. According to the said guidelines, a request for resitement on the ground of reduction in sales level below the prescribed limit could be entertained by the DDA provided the proposal was referred by the oil company or the Ministry. The parties are ad-idem that the cases of both the appellants for relocation were recommended by the two Oil Companies, viz., IOC and HPCL, on account of expected fall in sales because of the construction of the flyover and grid separator. However, before a final decision on the representation of the appellants could be taken, the policy of the DDA underwent revision in the year 2003. The criterion for allotment of land by the DDA for resitement of existing petrol pumps was changed. Under the revised policy, dated 20th June, 2003, a case for resitement could be considered by the DDA only under the following circumstances: A. Resitement: 1) Resitement will be made only when the existing petrol pump/gas godown site is utilized for a planned project/scheme which directly necessitates the closing down of the petrol pump/gas godown site. No resitemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
