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. 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 nonconsideration 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-GH; 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-and, furthermore, consider them in accordance with the existing scheme. The High Court, in contempt proceedings, has taken exception to this course of action in an entirely unnecessary and unwarranted manner. Once the legality of closure of the old scheme was undisputed, there was no manner of right inhering with the club, to insist that its claim for any plot had to be considered. If at all, it ought to have applied under subsequent schemes, and waited like other applicants (of that scheme), Noida’s interpretation of the High Court’s judgment (to consider) in this context, was quite correct. Neither did Noida, in its announcement while closing the old scheme nor in any condition of the 2013 or later scheme, stipulate that old scheme applicants would be dealt with according to the terms of that (i.e. 2010) scheme. This meant that Noida had to consider the club’s applications, in accordance with terms of the prevailing scheme. It did so, and incurred – quite unjustifiably- the wrath of the High Court in contempt proceedings. 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. [Para 20][608D-H]
Usman Gani Khatri of Bombay v. Cantonment Board [1992] 3 SCR 1; Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Ors. v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Ors. [2003] Suppl. 6 SCR 1212 – relied on.
3. The club could not have claimed that its application had to be dealt with in terms of the old scheme, which had ended in 2012. The direction of the High Court, could only have meant that the applications had to be revived, and dealt with the scheme prevailing as on the date of its consideration, i.e. after 31.07.2019. The interpretation placed by the High Court, that there were existing plots, which could have been dealt with under the old scheme is entirely misplaced. In such events, given that the legality of closure of the old scheme attained finality, there was no question of any land or plot being attached or belonging as it were to an old scheme. If any land or plot, or industrial unit were in fact “left-over” it was always up to the development authority or agency (here Noida) to determine how they are to be dealt with. The directions issued in contempt proceedings, which are subject matter of another appeal, are accordingly held erroneous. [Para 21][610-B-E]
4. The club was allotted a plot, in 2014; it paid substantial amounts. The area of that plot is 4000 square metres. Now, while it is true that this fact could not have been disclosed to the High Court, when filing the writ petition (in 2013), the club, had an obligation to disclose it, during the pendency of writ proceedings. This fact was material, given that the jurisdiction invoked is equitable and discretionary. Furthermore, 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. [Para 22][610-E-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.