MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY versus D.D.A.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY 
V. 
-
D.D.A. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Urban Development-Allotment of land-Application filed by 
" .. 
Appellant society before Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for 
c allotment of four acres of land for running a Senior Secondary school 
-Policy decision taken by DDA to allot only two acres of land-Writ 
petition against the policy decision-Dismissed by Single Judge-
Justification-Held, justified-After the policy decision in case of 
Appellant, DDA not shown to have allotted four acres of/and to any 
D other similarly situated institution-Plea of discrimination raised in 
the writ petition absolutely vague-Constitution of India, 1950-
Art.226. 
Appellant-society filed application before the Delhi 
E Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of four acres ofland 
for running a Senior Secondary School. DDA took the policy decision 
of allotting only two acres of land even though the Institutional 
Allotmenit Committee constituted by it had earlier recommended 
allotment of four acres ofland. Writ petition filed againstthe policy 
F 
decision was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. Writ appeal 
filed thereafter was also dismissed. 
It was contended before this Court that while in case of one Shri 
V cnkatcshwara Educational Society four acres ofland was directed 
to be allotted, Appellant was denied of a similar grant. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The policy decision of the Authority which was 
,,, 
impugned in the writ petition was taken in October 1999. It has not 
been shown before this Court that any allotment has been made in 
H 
876 
... 
MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY v. D.D.A. 
877 
favour ofany society allotting land having an area of four acres, after A 
October 1999. [Para 11] [879-F] 
1.2. Furthermore, the plea of discrimination raised in the writ 
petition was absolutely vague. Grounds taken in the writ petition in 
this behalf also did not specify that the appellant had been B 
discriminated against, vis-a-vis the said Shri Venkateshwara 
Education Society or any other allottee. Details of the grantin favour 
of the said society was not furnished. In absence of any specific 
contention having been raised, it was not possible for the respondent 
to furnish any reply thereto. [Para 13] [879-G; 880-A-B] 
c 
1.3. No argument also appears to have been advanced in this 
behalf before the Single Judge of High Court. The memo of writ 
appeal of the appellant was not supported by any affidavit affirmed 
either by one of its authorized representatives who was present in 
court or by the advocate appearing on its behalf, stating that the D 
contention in regard to the discriminatory treatment was raised 
before the Single Judge of High Court but was not dealt 
with. [Para 14] [880-C-D] 
1.4. A Judge's record must be accepted as correct. Appellant, 
thus, could have filed an application for review before the Single E 
Judge of High Court. The same was not done. Therefore, the High 
Court cannot be said to have committed any error in passing the 
impugned judgment. [Paras 15 and 16] [880-D-E] 
r 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5944 of F 
2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2005 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 404 of2003. 
K.K. Rai, Krishnanand Pandeya, Bankey Bihari, Ashwani K. G 
Sakhija and S.K. Pandey for the Appellant. 
V.B. Saharya (for M/s. Saharya & Co.) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
' 
·-
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of a Division 
Bench of Delhi High Court dated 7.9.2005 passed in LPA No.404 of 
2003. 
B 
3. Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration 
Act. It runs an educational institution. It applied for allotment of four acres 
of land for running a senior secondary school before the Delhi 
' 
Development Authority. The Institutional Allotment Committee which was 
constituted by the Authority, made recommendations for allotment of four 
c acres of land. Indisputably the competent authority of the DDA took a 
policy decision only to allot two acres ofland. 
4. Severa! writ petitions were filed which by reason of the impugned 
judgment have been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court 
D 
Before embarking on the questions raised before us, we may place on 
record that except

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.