https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313894 An executive communication could not create an enforceable right to allot flats under an out-of-turn quota after a housing scheme had closed. The Supreme Court noted that the scheme was self-contained and governed by its brochure, while Section 41 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and Section 56(2)(r) did not authorise Central Government intervention in allotment. A letter issued without statutory foundation could not revive a closed scheme or create a new quota. Legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were inapplicable because they cannot validate an ultra vires executive act. The claim to allotment therefore failed. en-us Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313894 An executive communication could not create an enforceable right to allot flats under an out-of-turn quota after a housing scheme had closed. The Supreme Court noted that the scheme was self-contained and governed by its brochure, while Section 41 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and Section 56(2)(r) did not authorise Central Government intervention in allotment. A letter issued without statutory foundation could not revive a closed scheme or create a new quota. Legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were inapplicable because they cannot validate an ultra vires executive act. The claim to allotment therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313894