2022 Supreme(Del) 738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
BHARATI SHIVAJI – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 9346, 11220, 11662 of 2021, C.M. Application Nos. 29010, 34534, 36058 of 2021, 5547, 5586 of 2022
Decided On : 25-02-2022

Point of Law: If an announcement is made by the Government of a policy conferring benefit on a large number of people, but subsequently, due to overriding public interest, the benefits that were announced earlier are withdrawn, it is not expedient to provide individual opportunities to such innominate number of persons.

Headnote:

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 - Section 3B - Orders for eviction - Show cause notices - Challenged - Policy of Discretionary Allotment - Validity of Policy - Petitioners are artists of repute and masters in their own right in varied fields of Indian classical arts - Amongst them are dancers, musicians, exponents of instruments such as sitar to name just a few - These artistes of national and international repute have amongst them many who have been conferred highest civilian honours of country and have become legends in their lifetime - In recognition of their standing of eminence and invaluable contribution made by them for propagation and preservation of classical art forms, they were allotted premises in question under a discretionary quota by respondents - Whether change of policy can be said to be tainted by manifest arbitrariness.

Finding of the Court:

Court finds itself unable to hold that the factors which evidently weighed with the respondents can be termed as being irrelevant or not germane to the issues which arose. The conclusions with respect to challenge raised by petitioners here must necessarily be guided by the indubitable fact that petitioners do not have an indefeasible right to continue in public premises in question. Their right to be allotted public premises is liable to be tested based upon provisions incorporated in the policy adopted and framed. That policy has not been assailed by the respondents here. The aforesaid factor weighs heavily against the petitioners. Of course, the question whether cancellation of allotment is liable to be interfered with on an alleged violation of policy terms itself is a separate issue and shall be dealt with hereinafter. The Court thus arrives at the firm conclusion that the decision taken by the CCA is based upon due deliberation and consideration of factors which were clearly germane. The decision ultimately taken cannot be viewed as suffering from a manifest arbitrariness. In any case, this Court view that decision was taken fairly and objectively - Notwithstanding fact that said petitioner is a distinguished and renowned exponent of classical music, his entitlement must ultimately be tested on anvil of applicable policy - Court consequently finds no right inhering in this petitioner to have retained public premises in question.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.