PREMJI BHAI PARMAR & OTHERS ETC. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 21-12-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
704 
PREMJI BHAI PARMAR & OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS 
December 21, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950 Artic.'es 14 & 32 & Delhi De~'elop1nent Autlwrity 
Act 1957-Authority cunstr11cting flats and selling thc111 to public-Levy and 
collection of surcharge as, price of fiat in addition to the construction cost-
Authority to work on 'no p1ofit no loss' basis-Such surcharge-Whether illegal 
-Dijcritninatory. 
The Delhi Development .-\uthority Act was enacted to provide for the deve-
lopment of IJelhi through ?\faster and Zonal Plans. 'the authority un4ertakes 
constructions of d'welling units for peopl'e belonging to different income groups 
styled as Middle Income, Lovv Income, Jaoa1.a and Ccmn1unity Personnel Service. 
In 1971, the authority '.:Ornmenced registration of intending applicants desirous 
of having dwelling units in d:ffere;nt Incom'e- Groups. 
Some of the petitioners 
got themselves registered with the authority in accordance with the terms and 
condition~ laid down by it, for allotment of flats in deposits as required hy the 
terms and cond.itions for ~tIG Scheme at Lawrence Road, Prasad Na_Pdr and 
Rajouri Garden .and made the initial deposit. 
Th~ number of available flats be-
ing less in each scheme compared to the number of applicants registered, lots 
Were drawn and the petitioners were i1;1formcd that each of them should deposit 
the amourrt mentioned in the letter of allotment. 
The Petitioners 
paid 
the 
amount a3 intimated and Consequently a flat was aUotted to each of them and 
they entered into possession. 
Jn their \Vrit petitions under Article 32, the petitioners assailed the levy and 
collection of surcharge in zddition to the cost price of the flats. 
It was con-
tended on th'eir behalf that; (i) The treatment meted by the Authority is discri-
minatory inasmuch as no surch:_:irge was levied on flats in Ml(J schemes cons-
tructed and allotted plior to November. 1976 and after January, 1977; (ii) As 
the authority f0r1nulates income-wise, area-wise schemes for constructing fiats, 
there 8hould be only income-wise classification wholly ignoring area and time 
factor for classification; (iii) Levying of surcharge runs counter to the object 
for which th'e authority was set-up namely to make available housing accom-
n1odation on "no profit no loss" basis; (iv) Surcharge is arbitrary inasmuch as 
how the surcharge i;;; worked out in each case does not conform to any rational, 
t&ngible, sch::ntifi\.' or understandable formula; (v) The Vice-Chairrnan bad no 
authority to levy surcharge and that even if he has authorised the same, it runs 
ccuntcr to the principle of fixing disposal price incorporated in resolution No. 209 
dated Nov'ember 26, 1974; (vi) Even if the Vice-Chairman had such power there 
is nothing to show that he has exercised this power and given direction for adding 
the surcharge to the disposal price and that therefore, the levy of surcharge is 
unauthorised; and (vii) that the nuthority has mad'e a. huge profit by levy of 
surcharge. 
The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitions were not 
maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution inasmuch&<> the petitioners have 
not come to lhe Court for enforcement of a fundamental right conferred upon. 
• 
• 
\I 
) 
• 
• 
P. B. PARMAR V. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
705 
them under P&t Ill of the Constitution but that the petition'ers have invoked the 
jurisdicion of the Court for the t'elief of reopening concluded contracts, and 
that if the court accepts the contentions, the petitioners would deriv'e an unfair 
ad'vantage ovt'r ethers who may not have applied for fiats because of the price 
set out in the brochur'e· and if surcharge is excluded they may have applied for 
!lats at a lov.:er price. The Court should not therefore entertain the petitions. 
Dismissing the petitions, 
HELD : I. 1\s the Court has heard the petitions on m<;;rits it is not inclined 
to 1 eject then1 on the prdiminary objections. _It is undeniable that can1ouflage of 
;\rt. 14 cannot conceal the re<1l purpose motivating the petitions, na1nely to get 
back a part of the purchase price of flats paid by the· petitioners with wide open 
eyes after flat'\ have been St'curely obt<i.ined. 
Petition to this Court under Art. 32 
i~ not a proper rente<ly nor is the Supren1e Court a. proper forum for re-opening 
concluded cJ:1tracts with a view to getting ba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.