U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment of Plot and Houses Rules, 1979 – rr.15,30 – Appellant-U.P. Housing and Development Board floated a housing scheme – In 1982, respondent deposited an amount necessary for registration – In 1993, respondent filed a consumer complaint against the appellant – District Forum gave liberty to the respondent to seek allotment at the current market value under any of the schemes of appellant – Aggrieved, Respondent filed appeal before the State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) which was dismissed – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directed appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in any of the flats available in the Mandola Vihar Yojna, Ghaziabad – On appeal, held: Clause 5 of the Registration booklet indicated that mere registration does not confer a right for allotment – Further, r.30 of the Rules, 1979 indicated that after the Board advertises the availability of a scheme in the newspaper, every registered applicant is at liberty to submit a consent letter for participation in the draw of lots – Applicant must show readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in retrospect of a specified scheme – In view of the clear position in the brochure and the Rules of 1979, the respondent had no vested right to seek an allotment – As a registered applicant, the respondent was at liberty to seek to participate in the draw of lots by indicating his consent to the appellant – NCDRC committed error in issuing direction to the appellant to make an allotment to the respondent – Thus, the order of NCDRC set aside.
In 1982, the appellant-Board floated a scheme for Economically weaker sections. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs.500 for registration. In terms of the Rules, 1979 registered applicants were required to furnish their written consent for being included in the draw of lots. None was provided by the respondent. The respondent filed a consumer complaint in 1993. The District Forum directed respondent to secure allotment at the current value fixed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by SCDRC. The NCDRC issued a direction to the appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- . Hence the present Special Leave Petition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The appellant is governed by the terms and conditions advertised in its Registration Booklet and U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment of Plot and Houses Rules, 1979. Clause 5 of the Registration Booklet indicates that mere registration does not confer a right for allotment. Rule 15 makes a provision to the effect that the Board is not bound to allot a house or plot to every registered holder. Rule 30 indicates that after the Board advertises the availability of a scheme in the newspaper, every registered applicant is at liberty to submit a consent letter for participation in the draw of lots. Mere registration does not oblige the authority to include every registered applicant in the draw of lots. The applicant must show readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in respect of a specified scheme. This is evident from Rule 30(2 ). A set of priorities is provided in Rule 30 (5). In view of the clear position in the brochure and the Rules of 1979, the respondent had no vested right to seek an allotment. As a registered applicant, the respondent was at liberty to seek to participate in the draw of lots by indicating his consent to the appellant. After paying an initial sum of Rs 500 in 1982 and a further sum of Rs
500 in 1985, the respondent did not pursue any remedies until 1993 when he moved the District Forum. The order of the District Forum gave liberty to the respondent to seek allotment at the current market value under any of the schemes of the appellant. The NCDRC was manifestly in error in issuing a direction to the appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a total sum of Rs 2,50,000 in any of the flats available in the Mandola Vihar Yojna, Ghaziabad. There is no rationale basis or justification for the amount of Rs 2,50,000 which has been fixed by the NCDRC. This direction proceeds purely on the basis of the Ipse dixit of the forum. The appellant, as a public authority, could not have been compelled to enter into a contract with the respondent. There was no contractual entitlement of the respondent to the allotment of a flat much less for an allotment at a specified price. In its effort to render justice, the NCDRC has adopted a view which is contrary to the basic principles of contract governing the law on the subject. [Para 15] [736-E-H; 737-A-C]
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.