B. P. JAIN AND ASSOCIATES versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 12-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
B. P. JAIN AND ASSOCIATES 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 
[K. N. SINGH, CJ., R.M.SAHAI AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
DECEMBER 12, 1991 
Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975-
Section 8 (2) & (3)-Applicability of. 
Town Planning-Group housing or housing colony-Object. 
Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 197~ 
Rule 11-Applicationfor licence for group housing scheme--'DirectiOn to fulfil 
the conditions for 'grant of licence-Refusal on the ground of nonfulfilment 
of condition~epresentation agreeing to fulfil the requirements-Rejected by 
authority-Governor's direction to revalidation of the order of authority-
D Held, revalidation of licence/permission on fulfilment of the conditions. 
The petitioner-firm, which was carrying on construction activities 
owned 24.25 acres of vacant land. 
Or121.7.1983, under the provisions of the Haryana Development and 
E · Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Haryana Development and 
Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, the petitioner-firm applied for the 
grant of licence for group housing scheme. The firm was noticed to fulfil 
the conditions laid down in Rule 11 of the Rules within a period of 30 days. 
F 
The agreement was required to be executed on non-judicial stamp 
paper of Rs. 3. The petitioner was a1so called upon to execute a bank 
guarantee for Rs. 109.30 lacs. On petitioner's request for furnishing the 
ban~ guarantee, time was extended by four weeks on two occasions. 
While returning the estimates for development and. service plans for 
G 24.45 acres the second responden.t directed the petit. ner to submit the 
estimate only for 21.15 acres to which the petitioner replied that the 
external development charges which were demanded to be reduced in view 
of the reduction in the area. 
The request of the petitioner was not acceded and the petitioner was 
H called upon to execute an agreement under bank guarantee as already 
asked for. 
392 
B. P. JAIN v. STATE 
393 
After some lapse of time the petitioner explained the circumstances 
A 
under which he could not arrange for the bank guarantee of Rs. 109.30 
lacs earlier and also stated that it was willing to abide by all the directions 
and conditions, pre.scribed by the second respondent. 
The second respondent refused petitioner's request for grant of a 
licence since it had failed to fulfil the conditions laid down under rule 11 
B 
within the stipulated/extended period. 
The petitioner filed a memorandum to the Governor. 
The Governor made a suggestion that the licence granted in Feb. 
1984 could be revalidated if the petitioner was ready and willing to pay . C 
interest on bank rate on the amount of Rs.109.30 lacs, which the petitioner 
agreed. The Governor directed to submit a report and to calculate the 
total amoun~. With the change of the Government, the directions of the 
Governor were not implemented. 
The petitioner filed this writ petition contending that having given 
an assurance it was not open to the respondent to withdraw that assurance 
and in such a case the principle of promissory estoppel would apply; that 
as the petitioner was willing to comply with the directions as given by the , 
Governor, to refuse to accord licence would amount to acting in an 
arbitrary· and unreasonable manner; that the respondent could not be 
allowed to frustrate the setting up of the' Group Housing Colony as it was 
provided to help the weaker sections. 
The respondents submitted that the petitioner did not exhaust the al-
ternative remedy of appeal and review provided under sections 19 and 20. 
of the Act; that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches, as the 
order was passed on 25.9.89, the petition not to be considered at this 
belated stage; that there was nojustitication for approaching this Court 
directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, as the petitioner could havt; 
approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Sections 8(2) & 8(3) are not applicabie to the pre~ent case, 
as no licence had been granted to the petitioner. [397 F] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2. The basic need· of every citizen of this country is to have a 
reasonable accommodation to life. The house-building activities is to be H 
) 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. 
A encouraged. The Court need not underscore the magnitude of the problem 
and the urgent need to provide solution, excepting to subscribe to the 
ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.