LexPOONAM VERMA AND ORS. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A POONAM VERMA AND ORS. 4 ?'"" ' v. ,.. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 13, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] -l - Urban Development: c Delhi Development Act, 1957-ss. 41 and 56-Direction by Central Government for creation of 'out of turn quota' for allotment of flats--Legality of-Held: Central Government could not issue such directions-It did not have any quota under the Act or the Scheme- s. 41 envisages that Central Government could issue directions having D nexus with efficient administration of the Act and not in the matter of allotment of flats-Moreso, Scheme was closed and could not be revived thereafter-Guidelines being advisory in character per se did not confer any legal right-Also doctrine of legitimate expectation was not invokable-Thus, purported decision being wholly without E jurisdiction is a nullity-Administrative law-Legitimate expectation. The respondents floated the Self Financing Registration Scheme, 1982 for the allotment of flats. The appellants got themselves registered under the Scheme, but were not successful in obtaining the flats. The 1 - F Scheme was closed. Thereafter, public notice was issued for release of more flats and the unsuccessful registrants were given chance to apply. Appellants did not respond to the notice, however, were allotted flats in category III. Appellants did not make payments whereas raised a claim for including their names in VI and VI A Schemes. Respondents rejected G the claim. Aggrieved appellants filed complaint before the Consumer Forum on the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. They were unsuccessful in the first round oflitigation. Appellants then approached the Ministry ofU rban Affairs. The Joint Secretary ( D & L) by letter dated 24.08.2000 addressed to Vice Chairman, DDA H 552 ' -> - t POONAM VERMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT 553 AUTHORITY directed that the VC, DDA would cover the case of pending registrants A (three in number) under the out of Turn Allotment Quota, being hard cases and action would be taken to allot flats. Despite availability of flats, the Ministry's orders were not complied with. Appellant's application before the State Commission was dismissed. Appellants then filed application before Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat held thatthe DDA did B not accept the recommendations since SFS Scheme had become defunct and the scheme of OTA was no longer in existence and thus, directed the appellants to approach appropriate forum. Both the Writ Petitions as also Letter Patent appeals thereagainstwere dismissed. Hence the present appeal. C Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 41 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 only envisages that the respondent would carry out such directions that may be issued by the Central Government from time to time for the efficient D administration of the Act It speaks about policy decision. Any direction issued must have a nexus with the efficient administration of the Act. The same does not take within its fold an order which can be passed by the Central Government in the matter of allotment of flats by the Authority in respect of a particular scheme. E [Para 12] [560-G; 561-A, BJ 1.2. The Central Government does not have any quota under the Act. It did not have any quota under the Scheme. The Central Government had no say in the matter either on its own or under the p Act. In terms of the Brochure, Section 41 of the Act does not clothe any jurisdiction upon the Central Government to issue such a direction. [Paras 13and14) [561-B, D,E] 1.3. The submission that the Central Government could issue the G said direction in exercise of rule making power under section 56 of the Act is wholly misplaced. In issuing the letter dated 24.08.2000, the Central Government did not exercise its legislative 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 issued any direction H 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A in terms thereof. Hsection 41 of the Actorforthatmatter 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 did not arise. [Paras 15and16] (561-E, F, G] B MP. Gangadharan and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Ors., (2006] 6 sec 162, distinguished. 1.4. All the authorities under the Act including the Central G
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.