Appeal Dismissed: No Binding Order for Petrol Pump Resitement; New Policy Upheld as Fair and Reasonable.

The SC dismissed the appeal, determining that the Technical Committee's recommendation for resitement of the appellants' petrol pumps was not a binding order on the DDA. The Court held that the appellants lacked a substantive legitimate expectation under the 1999 policy, which was overridden by the 2003 policy change. The DDA's decision to apply the new policy and refuse resitement was upheld as fair and reasonable, aligning with public interest considerations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the recommendation of the Technical Committee for re-sitement of appellants' petrol pumps constitutes an order/decision binding on the DDARs.
2. Whether the appellants had a legitimate expectation of being resited under the DDA's 1999 policy, and the impact of the change in policy in 2003 on this expectationRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Binding Nature of Technical Committee's Recommendation:
The Supreme Court examined whether the recommendation of the Technical Committee for re-sitement of the appellants' petrol pumps constituted a binding order on the DDA. The Court emphasized that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is merely an expression of his viewpoint and is not an executable order affecting the rights of the parties until it reaches the final decision-making authority, gets approval, and is communicated to the concerned party. The Court referenced the Constitution Bench decision in *Bachhittar Singh vs. The State of Punjab*, which held that an order by a Minister does not amount to an order by the State Government unless it is communicated to the party concerned. The Court concluded that the recommendation of the Technical Committee did not fructify into an order conferring legal rights upon the appellants, as it was never communicated as a final decision by the competent authority.

2. Legitimate Expectation and Policy Change:
The Court then addressed whether the appellants had a legitimate expectation of being resited under the 1999 policy and the effect of the 2003 policy change. The doctrine of legitimate expectation requires that an administrative body, through representation or past practice, creates an expectation in the mind of a person which it would be within its powers to fulfill unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. The Court noted that the 1999 policy allowed for resitement due to reduced sales on account of planned projects, provided the proposal was referred by an oil company or the Ministry. However, before a final decision on the appellants' representation could be taken, the DDA revised its policy in 2003. The new policy stipulated that resitement would only be made when the existing petrol pump site was utilized for a planned project directly necessitating its closure, and did not contemplate resitement on account of reduced sales.

The Court found that the appellants' cases were considered and favorable recommendations were made, but no final decision was communicated before the policy change. The new policy, which was not challenged, was deemed to have been conceived in public interest. The Court held that the principle of legitimate expectation did not apply as the 1999 policy did not cast an obligation on the DDA to relocate the petrol pumps, and the appellants' expectation was merely to be considered for resitement. The decision of the DDA to apply the new policy and decline resitement was found to be neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the recommendation of the Technical Committee did not constitute a binding order, and the appellants did not have a substantive legitimate expectation under the 1999 policy that could override the new policy of 2003. The decision of the DDA was upheld as being fair and in accordance with the revised policy.

---