The principles of promissory estoppel can be applied to prevent a public authority from going back on its promise, even if the promise was not legally binding.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the cancellation of the allotment of flat No. 2223, Category III, Sector C, Pocket, II Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are, that on 13th August, 1982 the petitioner had got herself registered for a Category 11 flat under the Fifth Self-Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982. The petitioner deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 10,000. 00. Thereafter on 8th February, 1984 she made an application to the respondent to the effect that she would prefer allotment under Category III instead of Category II. On 16th July, 1984 the request of the petitioner for the change from Category II to Category III was accepted and on a draw of lot conducted on 15th June, 1984 the petitioner was allocated a flat. According to the petitioner, and this is borne out from the record, the petitioner paid the instalments asked for and also paid a further sum of Rs. 5000. 00 being the differential in the initial deposit between category II and Categore III. This differential had been demanded by the respondents. Further instalments were also paid by the petitioner. On 12th January, 1987 the respondents wrote a further letter to the petitioner staling that the earlier flat which had been allocated to the petitioner had not been constructed and another flat on the ground floor would be allotted to her. Pursuant thereto on 22nd April, 1988 a fresh draw of lots was held and the aforesaid flat No. 2223 was allotted to the petitioner. Vide - a letter dated 27th June, 1988 the petitioner was informed about the said allotment and she was also required to pay a further sum of Rs. 12033. 60. This amount was paid on 22nd July, 1988. According to the petitioner, all other formalities which were required to be completed by her were completed. The possession of the flat was, however, never handed over to the petitioner though she had paidasum of Rs. 2,77,000. 00 by now. On a complaint being made on 16th November, 1989 with the Consumer Protection and Redressal Forum, Tis Hazari. Delhi, the respondents on 5th March, 1990 filed a reply to the effect that the allotment to the petitioner had been made by oversight. According to the respondents, she was entitled to registration only in category II and a flat had been wrongly allotted to her in category III. The petitioner has now filed the present petition impugning the aforesaid action of the respondents.

( 3 ) THE facts enumerated above have not been denied by the respondents. It is, however, stated that the petitioner was not eligible to get an allotment in category III.

( 4 ) IN our opinion, the action of the respondents, besides being callous, is indefensible. The petitioner was informed way back in 1984 that she had been successful in a draw of lots for allocation of a flat in category III. It is after a period of over 5 years that the petitioner was faced with the situation where she was told that the allotment had been wrongly made to her. It is not as if the allotment was made to her only in 1984, in fact the present flat No. 2223 was allotted to her as a result of a subsequent draw of lost which had taken place on 22nd April, 1988 and, therefore, on two different occasions draw of lots in respect of category III flat took place and the petitioner was successful. The petitioner has been paying the demands as and when raised by the respondents without the respondents ever raising any objection thereto. The said flat is alleged to have been cancelled vide a letter dated 24th November, 1989 and 19th December, 1989 written by the Deputy Director to the petitioner in which it is stated that the aforesaid allocation of category III flat and the allotment thereof has been cancelled as the petitioner was registered under category II. In our opinion, the said letters dated 24th November, 1989 and 19th December, 1989 have been issued contrary to the facts on the record. The respondents themselves, in 1984, had received Rs. 5000. 00 as a