https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191723 Under the Chandigarh statutory allotment scheme, an applicant acquired no enforceable right merely because lots were drawn in his favour; allotment arose only on the prescribed statutory intimation by the Estate Officer. Rule 8(3) was construed as directory, giving applicants a right to consideration of their applications rather than a mandatory right to allotment on payment of earnest money. Promissory estoppel could not prevent the administration from revising the allotment policy or changing the premium and site size, because no clear statutory promise was shown and estoppel cannot compel action beyond the governing rules. The revised policy for smaller sites in Phase I was upheld as bona fide and non-discriminatory under Article 14. en-us Fri, 04 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191723 Under the Chandigarh statutory allotment scheme, an applicant acquired no enforceable right merely because lots were drawn in his favour; allotment arose only on the prescribed statutory intimation by the Estate Officer. Rule 8(3) was construed as directory, giving applicants a right to consideration of their applications rather than a mandatory right to allotment on payment of earnest money. Promissory estoppel could not prevent the administration from revising the allotment policy or changing the premium and site size, because no clear statutory promise was shown and estoppel cannot compel action beyond the governing rules. The revised policy for smaller sites in Phase I was upheld as bona fide and non-discriminatory under Article 14. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191723