9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir choice. The Scheme was closed. However, with a view to give a chance to those who were not successful in the lots on the earlier occasions, a public notice was issued in some newspapers on 8.12.1993 for release of about 3000 flats which included some built and ready-built ones situated in Kondli-Gharoli. Registrants under the Scheme were entitled to apply therefore. In the public notice, it was categorically stated that the registrants of the said scheme who had not applied for an allotment in that release would not be eligible to apply again for allotment. It was further stated that in the case registrants of 5th SFS did not avail of this opportunity or if they surrendered allotment/ allocation after being successful, they shall be deemed to have opted out of the scheme and action shall be taken to refund their registration money. 3. Appellants did not respond to the said notice. Despite the same allegedly they had been allotted Category- III flats. They were called upon to pay the price specified therefore and to take delivery thereof. They declined to do so. They asked their names to be included in the VI and VI-A Self Financing Schemes which were issued later on. Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pending petitioners, especially, the hard cases under the OTA quota. It was also mentioned by the VC, DDA that there are only three such cases. It is, therefore, requested that further action to allot the flats to these three petitioners may please be taken and action taken in the matter may be intimated to this Ministry in due course. 6. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was again approached. The application of the appellants was dismissed. Another application was filed by them before the Permanent Lok Adalat for non- compliance of orders of Ministry of Urban Development despite availability of flats. By an order dated 6.09.2005, the Lok Adalat observed: On 12.4.2005, Lok Adalat had recommended that the case of the petitioner is a hard case and instead of General Scheme the case of the petitioner should be considered under the Out of Turn Allotment quota particularly when there are only three cases left. In this connection a letter of Minister of Urban Development Poverty Alleviation dated 24.8.2005 refers to. This letter clearly provides that according to the Vice- Chairman, DDA there are only three such cases left and in such a situation the case of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement made by the Vice-Chairman of the respondent on 8.11.2002 by reason of allotment of the flats, nobody else would be prejudiced. 9. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted: (i) Appellant do not have any legal right in obtaining allotment of flats. (ii) They having failed to deposit the amount as far back in 1994 cannot now be permitted to claim an equitable right despite their unsuccessful attempt before the Forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985. 10. Indisputably, the Scheme was an independent one. It was a Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme. Other similar schemes following the same were also wholly independent of each other. The Brochure issued for enforcing the said Scheme is a self-contained document. It provides for the mode and manner in which flats are to be allotted, the categories of the allotment of flats thereof, mode of payment as also cancellation thereof. Indisputably, despite the fact that the appellants were not successful in obtaining the flats by reason of draw of lots and despite the fact that they did not respond to the notice issued by the respondent, those cases h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power nor could it do so. The Central Government in terms of the Act apart from Section 41 did not have any power and, thus, could not have issue any direction in terms thereof. 16. If Section 41 of the Act or for that matter Section 56(2)(r) thereof were not applicable, the question of issuing any direction purported to be in terms of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, as has been submitted by Mr. Ram Prakash, did not arise. 17. M.P. Gangadharan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR2006SC2360 , whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr. Ram Prakash, has no application in the instant case. 18. The Scheme in question was closed as far back as in the year 1994. The Central Government in terms of the provisions of the Act or otherwise had no jurisdiction to revive the same. 19. All the authorities under the Act including the Central Government being the creature of statute were bound to act within the four corners thereof. A specific grievance was raised by the appellants herein that the action on the part of the authority amounted to unfair trade practice. Deficiency of service was also pleaded. The same had been negatived. The courts having appropriate jurisdiction having foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losure could not even have been revived. 24. Guidelines per se do not partake to the character of statute. Such guidelines in absence of the statutory backdrop are advisory in nature. Mr. Ram Prakash himself has relied upon a decision of this Court in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and Ors. [1989]3SCR43 wherein it has been laid down: 100... This is because guidelines, by their very nature, do not fall into the category of legislation, direct, subordinate or ancillary. They have only an advisory role to play and non-adherence to or deviation from them is necessarily and implicitly permissible if the circumstances of any particular fact or law situation warrants the same. Judicial control takes over only where the deviation either involves arbitrariness or discrimination or is so fundamental as to undermine a basic public purpose which the guidelines and the statute under which they are issued are intended to achieve. [See also Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and Ors. 1990 (Supp) SCC 440 at 508; Maharao Sahib Shir Bhim Singhji v. Union of India and Ors. AIR1981SC234 ; J.R. Raghupathy and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. 1988(38)ELT225(SC) (paragraph 31); Uttam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by the courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a legitimate expectation of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above fairness in action but far below promissory estoppel . It may only entitle an expectant: ( a ) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or ( b ) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the courts may grant a direction requiring the authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
