Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MOHD. HAROON - Appellant
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - Respondent
W.P.(C) No.11060/2015 & CM No.28621/2015
Decided on : 2-05-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Ritesh Kr. Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek B. Sahrya, ASC with Mr. Mananjay Mishra, Adv.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply when the rights are governed by a written contract.
Headnote:
Promissory Estoppel - License Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [Clause 25 of the Licence Deed, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pacquik Industries Ltd., Kaveri Infrastructure P. Ltd. Vs. N.D.M.C., State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ganesh Wood Products]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the return of a Show Window from the respondent NDMC, claiming that the respondent had promised to return it after taking it for repair. The petitioner argued that the respondent's actions amounted to promissory estoppel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim was not supported by the Licence Deed, which allowed the respondent to carry out changes in the subway. The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply as the rights were governed by the written contract.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the return of the Show Window based on the principle of promissory estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rights governed by a written contract are not subject to promissory estoppel. The court also emphasized that the doctrine of promissory estoppel must yield when equity requires, and the government should not be bound by a promise not enforceable in law.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the refusal dated 28th July, 2015 of the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to allow the petitioner use of Show Window no.3 in Regal Subway near Palika Bazar and seeks a mandamus to the respondent NDMC to return to the petitioner the said Show Window.
2. Notice of the petition was issued and though the respondent NDMC availed of time to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed till now.
3. Be that as it may being of the prima facie view that the petition is misconceived and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, the counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
4. The counsel for the petitioner, on the right of the petitioner to the said Show Window being enquired, states that the petitioner was granted a Licence with respect thereto vide Deed of Licence dated 21st December, 1989 and on further enquiry as to what was the term of the licence states that the same was for a period of five years renewable on the same terms and conditions on increase in licence fee by 10%. On further enquiry whether the licence was renewed after the period of five years thereof was over in December, 1994, the counsel states that though there was no renewal of licence but the respondent NDMC in the year 2004 had raised a monetary demand on the petitioner and which was disputed by the petitioner and the respondent NDMC in the year 2004 sealed the said Show Window; the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.2978/2008 in this Court and which was disposed of vide order dated 23rd July, 2008 recording the stand of the respondents to waive off the entire amount of interest for the break up period and by stipulating that upon the petitioner paying the demanded amount, the respondents would deliver back the Show Window to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent NDMC in pursuance thereto on 5th September, 2008 delivered back the Show Window to the petitioner.
5. The genesis of the present dispute is the repair/renovation work of the subway undertaken for Common Wealth Games in the year 2010 and for which the said Show Window was again taken back by the respondent NDMC from the petitioner.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent NDMC at the time of taking back the Show Window had „promised? to the petitioner to return the same and the petitioner changed his position on the basis of the said promise by continuing to pay licence fee even after possession had been taken from him. It is further contended that though the work of the subway was to be completed in August, 2010 itself but went on endlessly and was completed only in the year 2013 but thereafter also the Show Window was not returned to the petitioner.
7. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.1217/2015 in this Court and which was disposed of vide order dated 9th February, 2015 with a direction to the respondent NDMC to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and in pursuance whereto vide communication dated 28th July, 2015 the representation of the petitioner for return of the Show Window has been refused on the grounds that there is no such Show Window in the renovated subway and that no promise for return thereof was made.
8. The counsel for the petitioner invokes the law relating to promissory estoppel and has in Court handed over extracts of Spencer Bower “The Law Relating to Promissory Estoppel by Representation”, Mahabir Auto Stores Vs. Indian Oil Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 752 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. (1990) 1 SCC 176.
9. I have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the present facts. Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ganesh Wood Products (1995) 6 SCC 363 held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was evolved to protect a promisee who acts on the faith of a promise/representation made by promisor and alters his position even though there is no consideration for the
