LexM/S. SETHI AUTO SERVICE STATION AND ANR. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 14 S.C.R. 598 MIS. SETHI AUTO SERVICE STATION AND ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. (Civil Apeal No. 6143 of 2008) OCTOBER 17, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Administrative law: Executive order - Notings in a departmental file - Na- e ture of - Held: Notings do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order - It is only an expression of viewpoint of an officer for internal use of the decision making authority - It culminates into an executable order only when it reaches and gets approval of the final decision-making authority and is D communicated to the person concerned - On facts, although there were several notings recommending consideration of appellants' case for relocation of their petrol pumps but finally no official communication was addressed to or received by them - Notings in the file did not confer any right upon the E appellants. · Doctrine of legitimate expectation - Applicability of - Held: Mere favourable recommendations at some level of de- cision making process would be of no consequence - The concept of legitimate expectation has no application where F State action is in the public interest unless action taken amounts to abuse of power - Person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, has to satisfy that he relied on some representation by State and denial of that ex- pectation worked to his detriment - On facts, principle of le- G gitimate expectation not applicable - Decision of ODA in de- clining request of appellants, for resitement of petrol pumps due to construction of flyover, was not arbitrary or unreason- able. H 598 MIS. SETHI AUTO S. STATION & ANR. v. DELHI 599 DEVELOPMENT AUTH. & ORS. ~--~ The writ petitioners-appellants owned petrol outlets A adjacent to each other, located at NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi since 1994. The land for the said purpose was allot- ted by the Airport Authority of India (AAI). The petrol pumps were allotted by the two oil companies, IOC and HPCL to the appellants. B \· In the year 1999, a proposal was formulated for con- · t ' struction of an Eight-lane Express Highway between Delhi and Gurgaon, including construction of flyover/grid separator at Mahipalpur crossing, where the two petrol pumps in question were located. c The two oil companies approached DOA for resitement of the petrol pumps on account of economic unviability pointing out that after the completion of con- struction of grid separator, all vehicles would cross over D the separator and would not have access to the two petrol >- pumps in question. The State Level Coordinator (Oil In- dustry) also wrote to the DOA supporting the claim of ap- pellants. The Technical Committee of DOA on 28.4.2002 rec- E om mended relocation/resitement and on 17 .5.2002, a pro- posal for allotment of alterative sites was referred to and considered by the Screening Committee of DOA at its meeting held on 21.11.2003, when the proposal for allot- ment of two alternative sites was approved. However, F ,._.\. ~ when the matter was finally taken up by the Screening Committee of DOA on 28.11.2003, the proposal for reloca- tion was disapproved and instead the Commissioner (Planning) was directed to enquire and submit a report as to why the two petrol pump sites, earmarked for the G appellants, were not auctioned. The recommendation of ~- the Screening Committee was considered by the Vice Chairman of DOA, who rejected the proposal for reloca- tion of the two petrol pumps in question . . The appellants filed writ petitions before the High H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A Court wherein it was held that the appellants could not claim an enforceable right merely on the basis of the pro- posal leading to the recommendation by the Technical Committee as it did not amoun.t to an order or decision of the DOA, particularly when its competent authority re- 8 jected the request of the appellants. It also observed that at best the appellants had a mere expectation of being considered for re-sitement and that the ODA had acted fairly and reasonably in rejecting appellants' prayer for re-sitement. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were dis- c missed. Hence the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is trite to state that notings in a depart- mental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effec- D tive order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his vi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.