TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontended that a legal right was created in their favour under the above Resolution dated 31.8.79 by itself and that Delhi Transport Corporation was estopped from recalling its decision vide subsequent Resolution No. 179/79 dated 3.12.79 read with Resolution No. 35/81 dated 2.3.81. 3. The undisputed facts are as follows. Between 1962-63 and 1965-66, 5144 tenements were constructed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi in six colonies of the Delhi Administration, namely, Karampura, Nehru Nagar, Giri Nagar, Vishwakarma Nagar, Hari Nagar and G.T. Road under Integrated Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers and Economically Weaker Sections of the Community, 1952 (for short, 'the Scheme'). Appellants herein are industrial workers and they were allotted service quarters in Hari Nagar and G.T. Road colonies. They have retired from service. However, they have continued to reside in these quarters till today. According to the appellants, 300 quarters were constructed by Delhi Transport Undertaking at Hari Nagar and G.T. Road under the above Scheme. In 1971 Delhi Transport Undertaking was converted into Delhi Transport Corporation (for short, 'DTC'), taking 300 teneme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill not implement the policy decision of the Government of India. Aggrieved by the said Resolution, the appellants herein filed Suit No. 308/83 in the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration of entitlement to the transfer of these properties. The suit was decreed by the learned Single Judge on 11.9.1991. However, the appeal preferred by DTC was allowed by the impugned judgment. Hence this civil appeal 4. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (plaintiffs), submitted that Resolution of DTC dated 2.3.1981 was flawed and baseless. According to the learned Counsel, the representation made to the appellants by DTC stood withdrawn without cogent and sufficient reasons. In this connection, it was urged that the above Scheme was formulated by the Central Government. It was reviewed by the Central Government on 9.2.1978. Therefore, it was not open to DTC to question the decision of the Central Government to sell the tenements to the occupants. Learned Counsel further contented that except 300 tenements every other tenement under the Scheme has been sold. Only 300 tenements belonging to DTC were not transferred. In the circumstances, it was contended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, according to the appellants, a few tenements were lying vacant in Hari Nagar and G.T. Road colonies. On behalf of the appellants it was further pointed out that DTC colony at Shadipur was not even covered by the Scheme and therefore to say that the occupants of Shadipur Colony would also raise a similar demand, had no merit. 6. Learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment was erroneous. It was urged that the suit is based on promissory estoppel which is a principle based on equity and which principle requires no contractual or statutory basis. Learned Counsel urged that there was a distinction between the obligation of the State based on a promise and an obligation based on a contract. In the present case, according to the learned Counsel, the suit was founded on the promise made by DTC to the appellants. It was not based on the contract. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the High Court erred in holding that no legal right was shown in the tenements. Learned Counsel urged that the appellants had changed their position to their detriment relying on the promise made by DTC. They acted to their prejudice by not applying for and obtaining alternate accomm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cs. Learned Counsel pointed out that only an amount of Rs.6.25 lacs was given by the Central Government which was given as a loan. Rs.1.56 lacs was paid as subsidy. DTC had to pay back the loan with interest. In fact, the balance could not be paid because of recurring losses. These were reasons for postponing the decision to sell the tenements. It was further pointed out that the matter again came for consideration before the DTC Board on 8.3.1979 pursuant to the Memorandum of settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. In the said meeting of the DTC Board they considered the letter of the Government of India dated 14.2.1979 to permit employers (DTC) to sell the houses. However, according to the learned Counsel, the Scheme was an enabling scheme which did not create any obligation on DTC to sell their houses. Learned Counsel submitted that similarly the matter was again placed before DTC on 18.4.1979 when DTC Board agreed in principle to sell the houses to the occupants. However, the details had to be worked out. The matter was required to be considered with the lessor, namely, DDA. Learned Counsel submitted that the decision dated 18.4.1979 was tentative decision which required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was not open to DTC to resile from their earlier decision vide Resolution No. 179/79 dated 3.12.1979. We do not find any merit in the above two contentions. 11. As regards the first contention, we may observe that promissory estoppel is based on equity or obligations. It is not based on vested right. In equity the court has to strike a balance between individual rights on one hand and the larger public interest on the other hand. Freedom to contract is a common law civil liberty enjoyed by all persons. But when the Government is contracting with private parties this common law freedom is circumscribed by the principles of administrative law which requires larger public interest to be taken into account. We must remember that larger public interest is not only for accommodating retiree workmen but also to accommodate in-service workmen. Even applying the principles enshrined in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution, egalitarian equality requires the Government to strike a balance between competing claims. Even in the realm of social justice, on which our Constitution is founded, the administration has to strike a balance between the competing claims. In the present case, DTC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances, it was open to DTC to recall its decision of allotting the two colonies by way of sale to the occupants. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned Resolution No. 35/81 dated 2.3.1981 passed by DTC of not selling the tenements was in any way arbitrary, biased or discriminatory. We also do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that relying on the promise of DTC they altered their position to their prejudice by not opting for purchase under some other housing schemes. That, they did not buy the flat elsewhere all these years. There is no merit in the above contention. Resolution dated 31.8.1979 approving the sale was deferred on 3.12.1979 by the Chairman pointing out the above difficulties. Moreover no communication was ever sent to appellants individually calling upon them to make payment. Hence there was no representation as alleged. 12. Coming to the second contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs, the question we have to ask is: whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs could compel transfer of tenements in their favour on the basis of promissory estoppel. The present suit is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he State that various notifications granting sales tax exemptions to the dealers resulted in severe resource crunch. On reconsideration of the financial position, it was decided to limit the scope of the exemption notifications issued under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. This Court held that withdrawal of notification was done in public interest and that this Court will not interfere with any action taken by the Government in public interest. It was further observed that public interest must override any consideration of private loss or gain and, therefore, the plea of change of policy on the basis of resource crunch was sufficient for dismissing the case of the assessee under the Sales Tax Act of Orissa based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 14. In the case of Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P. and Ors. AIR2002SC322 , this Court speaking through one of us, Pasayat, J., vide para 23 observed as follows: If it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the pr....