SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 432

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Ritu Maheshwari - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Promotional Club - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 3616-3618 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No(s). 3619-3620 of 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):K.V. Viswanathan, Anil Kaushik, Shashi Sharma, Arunima Dwivedi, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Salman Khurshid, Utkarsh Sharma, Lubna Naaz, Kunal Beri, Advocates

Applicants have no inherent right to allotment under a scheme and must have their applications considered under the prevailing scheme. Applicants also have an obligation to disclose material facts during the pendency of proceedings.

Headnote:

Allotment - Industrial Plots - [S. Ravindra Bhat, J.] - [Writ-C No.-56046 of 2013, Contempt Application (Civil) No. 8214 of 2019] - The court discussed the terms of the old scheme for allotment of industrial plots, the closure of the scheme, and the subsequent allotment under the 2013 scheme. The court highlighted the principle that applicants have no inherent right to allotment under a scheme and emphasized the need to consider applications under the prevailing scheme. The court also emphasized the obligation of the applicant to disclose material facts during the pendency of proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Noida, published a scheme for allotment of industrial plots. The club applied for two plots under the scheme, but the scheme was terminated. The club approached the High Court, claiming arbitrary non-allotment and sought directions to consider its application. The High Court directed Noida to consider the club's applications under the old scheme.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the club had no inherent right to allotment under the old scheme and emphasized the need to consider applications under the prevailing scheme. The court also held that the club's failure to disclose the subsequent allotment disentitled it to any relief.

Issues: The issues involved the consideration of the club's application under the old scheme, the closure of the scheme, and the subsequent allotment under the 2013 scheme. The court also addressed the obligation of the applicant to disclose material facts during the pendency of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is that applicants have no inherent right to allotment under a scheme and must have their applications considered under the prevailing scheme. The court also emphasized the obligation of the applicant to disclose material facts during the pendency of proceedings.

Final Decision: Noida's appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court were set aside.

JUDGMENT :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. Special leave granted, in both petitions. With consent of counsel for parties, the appeals were heard finally. The two appeals arise out of judgments of the Allahabad High Court. The first is dated 31.07.2019,1[In Writ-C No.-56046 of 2013]; the same appeal impugns an order dismissing the review petition filed against the first impugned judgment, dated 13.04.2021. The second appeal is directed against three orders (dated 12.02.2020,24.08.2020 and 28.08.2020) issued in contempt proceedings, 2[Contempt Application (Civil) No. 8214 of 2019], initiated by the respondent, against the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant (hereafter referred to as "Noida"), published a scheme in 2010 (hereafter "the old scheme") for allotment of industrial plots larger than 2000 sq. meters, in Phases II and III of the industrial area in Noida. The scheme was advertised. Application forms for registration of the available plots were available with a designated bank upon payment of Rs.5,000/. The indicative price for plots measuring up to 4000 sq. mtr. in Phase II was Rs.5550/-per sq. mtr. and in Phase III for Rs.5750/- per sq mtr. Under the terms of the scheme as spelt out by the brochure, apart from individuals, partnership firms were also eligible to apply for allotment. The applicants were to submit a processing fee of Rs.20,000/- and registration money of Rs. 8 lakhs for Phase II plots and Rs. 10 lakhs for Phase III plots. Apart from these conditions, applicants had to furnish a project report, background detail of promoters, audited accounts and balance sheets and other relevant details. Allotment was to be made (per clause 2 (h) (i)) on the basis of interviews of registered applicants, by a screening committee, about the details of the project. The scheme was expressly open ended; therefore, under clause 2(i) in Appendix 1 to the scheme Noida could close it any time.

3. It is the common case of the parties that the club applied to the Noida Authority for two plots. Apparently, Noida decided to terminate the scheme, based upon its assessment of the feasibility of the scheme, in its meeting on 05.07.2012. This decision was published and made known to all concerned including the club through the public domain on 12.07.2012. Thereafter, Noida sought to refund the amount deposited by the club to it.

4. The club was aggrieved and approached the Allahabad High Court by filing the writ petition,3[Writ-C No.-56046 of 2013] contending that according to its information, Noida received 95 applications of which 65 were rejected and 15 allotments were made. The club urged that it fulfilled all requirements of the scheme and paid processing fee, registration amount, had lodged documents required to be furnished. Therefore, it claimed that its application deserved to be considered. It also contended that the club was an export house and operating from rented premises, sorely in need of a large facility and was unable to afford commercial rental spaces. It was urged that the Noida disregarded the terms and conditions of its scheme for allotment in that the non-consideration in respect of the plots under the scheme so far as the petitioner club was concerned was utterly arbitrary. The club claimed several directions including direction to cancel allotments already made and a mandatory direction to consider the petitioner club's application for allotment.

5. Noida had resisted the petition, arguing that once the scheme was discontinued, the club had no basis to claim allotment. It was also urged that the club was aware of the fact that the scheme could be discontinued at any time, a power which Noida had resorted to, validly. Therefore, it was urged that even if some plots were available, the writ petitioner could not lay claim for allotment of any of them.

6. During the pendency of writ petition before the High Court, Noida, launched another scheme (Scheme Code : NOIDA/IP/2013-14/OES/01 - hereafter called "th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top