2022 Supreme(Del) 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
Bharati Shivaji & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Union Of Indiaand Another - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9346 of 2021, CM Appls. 29010 of 2021 & 5586 of 2022
Decided On : 15-02-2022

The cancellation of allotments of public premises to eminent artists under a discretionary quota was not arbitrary or violative of legitimate expectations, where the artists did not have an indefeasible right to continue occupying the premises and the cancellation was based on relevant considerations.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of allotments of public premises to eminent artists under a discretionary quota, holding that the artists did not have an indefeasible right to continue occupying the premises and that the cancellation was not arbitrary or violative of legitimate expectations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, all eminent artists in various fields of Indian classical arts, were allotted public premises under a discretionary quota for eminent artists. The allotments were made on a leave and license basis for a period of three years, subject to renewal for a further period of three years. However, the artists continued to occupy the premises for periods ranging from 10 to 42 years, without any formal extensions being granted. In 2020, the Central Government decided to cancel the allotments and regularize the retention of the premises for the period from 2014 to 2020. The artists challenged the cancellation, arguing that it violated their legitimate expectations and was arbitrary.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the artists did not have an indefeasible right to continue occupying the public premises. The allotments were made under a discretionary quota, which was subject to the directions of the Supreme Court and the policies of the Central Government. The artists had remained in occupation of the premises for decades, without any formal extensions being granted. The Court also held that the cancellation of the allotments was not arbitrary. The Central Government had taken into consideration the fact that the artists did not fulfill the income and age criteria under the policy, that they had been in occupation of the premises for long periods, and that they had accumulated substantial arrears of license fee. The Court further held that the artists' legitimate expectations were not violated. The policy did not guarantee that the allotments would continue indefinitely. The artists had been permitted to retain the premises during the period when the policy was under review, but this did not give rise to a substantive right to continue occupying the premises.

Issues: 1. Whether the artists had an indefeasible right to continue occupying the public premises. 2. Whether the cancellation of the allotments was arbitrary. 3. Whether the artists' legitimate expectations were violated.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The artists did not have an indefeasible right to continue occupying the public premises because: a. The allotments were made under a discretionary quota, which was subject to the directions of the Supreme Court and the policies of the Central Government. b. The artists had remained in occupation of the premises for decades, without any formal extensions being granted. 2. The cancellation of the allotments was not arbitrary because: a. The Central Government had taken into consideration the fact that the artists did not fulfill the income and age criteria under the policy. b. The artists had been in occupation of the premises for long periods. c. The artists had accumulated substantial arrears of license fee. 3. The artists' legitimate expectations were not violated because: a. The policy did not guarantee that the allotments would continue indefinitely. b. The artists had been permitted to retain the premises during the period when the policy was under review, but this did not give rise to a substantive right to continue occupying the premises.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the cancellation of the allotments. The artists were granted a two-month grace period to vacate the premises.