RITU MAHESHWARI versus M/S. PROMOTIONAL CLUB

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 05-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 597
597
RITU MAHESHWARI
v.
M/S. PROMOTIONAL CLUB
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3616-3618 of 2022)
MAY 05, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Administrative law: Scheme of allotment of plot – Termination
of – When regulations or schemes, or policies change, applicants
for their benefits have no inherent right to be considered under the
old policy; rather the consideration has to be under the new regime,
unless the latter contains an express stipulation to the contrary –
Writ petitioner-club did not challenge the closure of the scheme of
allotment in which it was applicant; rather its case was that Noida’s
omission to consider its application for allotment was arbitrary –
Once the club accepted the closure of the scheme and did not
challenge it, there was no question of its agitating any right or
grievance regarding non-consideration of its application – The club
does not deny that there were other registrants, similarly
circumstanced, who did not secure any allotment – They presumably
were treated in the same manner as the club was – In the
circumstance, the club could not without establishing any
discrimination, merely on the strength of closure of the scheme, allege
arbitrariness.
Equity: Failure to disclose relevant facts before court –
Entitlement to equitable relief – Held: The club was allotted a plot
in 2014 in new scheme – The club,  had an obligation to disclose it,
during the pendency of writ proceedings in which club had
challenged termination of old scheme – This fact was material, given
that the jurisdiction invoked was equitable and discretionary –
Whether the grievance was justified and well founded, given that
state agencies develop and allot such industrial units at prices which
are reasonable, and that an applicant subsequently succeeded in
securing a plot, are relevant facts, which a court should be appraised
of – The failure by the club, to do so, disentitled it to any relief.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The club’s grievance was that its application was
not considered – its representatives were not interviewed. Noida
pointed out that it closed or terminated the scheme. In the writ
proceeding, the club did not challenge the closure of the scheme;
rather its case was that Noida’s omission to consider its
application for allotment was arbitrary. Once the club accepted
the closure of the scheme and did not challenge it, there was no
question of its agitating any right or grievance regarding non-
consideration of its application. The club does not deny that there
were other registrants, similarly circumstanced, who did not
secure any allotment. They presumably were treated in the same
manner as the club was. In the circumstance, the club could not
without establishing any discrimination, merely on the strength
of closure of the scheme, allege arbitrariness. It is well established
that when a policy decision like the closure or termination of a
benefit available to a class of persons, is not challenged, the
consequence of such closure (which is the impact on the pendency
of those wishing to be considered) cannot ordinarily be subject
matter of a grievance. What the club had was a right to be
considered for allotment of the plots its applied for, so long as
the old scheme subsisted. An applicant or registrant of a scheme
has no right to insist that they should be provided allotment under
a scheme.  In the absence of any ambiguity- in the law, and the
scheme, the writ petitioner club could not have insisted that after
the closure of the old scheme (which went unchallenged by it),
nevertheless, it had a right to allotment. In holding otherwise,
and proceeding to direct Noida to consider the club’s applications
the impugned judgment erred in law. [Paras 17, 18, 19][606-G-
H; 607-A-C, C-D; 608-B-D]
Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar
Jain [1994] Suppl. 3 SCR 770; The Bihar State Housing
Board & Ors. v. Radha Ballabh Health Care and
Research Institute (P) Ltd. (2019) 10 SCC483 : [2019]
12 SCR 444 – relied on.
2. The High Court had directed that the club’s applications
should be considered “in accordance with law”. Noida proceeded
to comply with that direction, and reinstate those applications-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
RITU MAHESHWARI v. M/S. PROMOTIONAL CLUB
and, furthermore, consider them in accordance with the existing
scheme. The High Court, in contempt proc

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