LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, N.D. & ANR. versus JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE, ALLOTTEE OF SFS FLATS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, N.D. & ANR. A -. v. JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE, ALLOTTEE OF SFS FLATS & ORS. DECEMBER 13, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) '"...- Delhi Development Act, 1957-ss. 2 (13), 5A and 52-Allotment of flats under Self Financing Scheme (SFS)-By Delhi Development c Authority-Default in payment of instalments-Condoned by Authority in terms of original contract-Subsequent policy decision by delegatee of the Authority, imposing 20% surcharge on the flats of South Delhi and recovery of current price on condonation of the default-Policy made effective with retrospective effect-Validity of D f restoration policy -Held: The policy is ultra vires-Imposition of t surcharge was in effect a compulsory exaction-The delegatee having no power to fi'ame such scheme under the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder, or to apply the same with retrospective effect, could not have done so by an executive order-The policy, being in the realm E of contract, cannot be stated to be a policy decision as such-It was dehors the original terms and conditions of the contract-The contract could not have been novated in absence of provisions under the contract or law-The Authority having condoned the default as per ..._ J. terms of original contact, estopped from seeking application of F subsequent restoration policy- Disposal price was permissible to be fixed within the purview of original terms of the contract and the statutory requirements-Action of a State must treat persons similarly situated equally and grant equal protection to them-Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing G Estates) Regulations, 1968-Regulations 5 and 6- Constitution of v India, 19 50-Articles 14 and 265-Contract- Estoppel. .4. Contract Act, 1872-ss. 29 and 60-Novation of contract- 811 H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Add!.) S.C.R. A Conditions for-Held: Terms and conditions of contract cannot be .+ altered unilaterally without notice to the other party oft he contract- . - When a contract has been worked out. aji·esh liability cannot be thrust upon contracting party. B Administrative Law-Delegation of power-Power of de legatee -Held: A de legatee is bound to act within four corners of the delegation and not beyond the same-Delegation of power must be tested in terms of statutory provisions. -.. .,.:'- Judicial Review: c Judicial review of policy decision-Scope of-Held: Policy decision is subject to judicial review-An executive order termed as policy decision is not beyond pale of judicial review-Grounds for interference with-Discussed. D Judicial review of Contract-Permissibility-Held: Permissible, When a contract emanates fiwn a statute or is otherwise governed by l provisions thereof ~ Judicial review ofprice fixation-Permissibility-Held: Though E ordinarily not permissible-But where the price is fixed de hors the statutory provisions, it is permissible. Constitution of India, 1950-Parts !JI and IV, Articles 12, 14 and 3 7-Vaiidity of an action of State-Ascertainment of-Held: Action of State giving effect to provisions of Part IV to be upheld only when F it is not ultra vires Fundamental Rights-The act of the State must at ·• ,• .. the first instance be adjudged on the touchstone of principles of Fundamental Rights and then of the provisions of the Parliamentary Act, or the regulations ji-amed thereunder or the terms of contract between the parties-Action of State must satisfy the principal G requirements of Article 14. Doctrines-Doctrine of ultra vires-Applicability of y Flats under a Self Financing Scheme (SFS) flooted in the year ~ 1991, were allocated by Delhi Development Authority. Registrants H defaulted in payment of instalments resulting in automatic + DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,N.D. v. JOINT 813 ACTION COMMITTEE, ALLOTTEE OF SFS FLATS cancellation of their allotments. Vice-Chairman of the Authority, A delegated with the power of Authority, took a policy decision by order dated 16.8.1996 levying 20% surcharge over and above disposal price in respect ofregistrants who had been allotted flats in South Delhi; and that defaulting registrants were required to pay current cost on regularization of the default. A resolution was passed and B an executive order was also passed to that effect. The resolution was given retrospective effect and retroactive operation. Several writ petitions were filed questioning the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.