Doctrine of ultra vires if applies.

The writ petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent dated 11.10.1990 by which the order of cancellation was passed in Anna Nagar Scheme.

2. Plot No.3623-G-11 measuring about one ground and 900 sq.ft. which was earmarked for the service industries in the lay-out was allotted to the petitioner herein the first respondent State by its order in G.O.Ms.No.1904 dated 14.12.1987. Based upon the said order, allotment was made to the petitioner on 11.4.1988 on payment of l/3rd cost of the plot on 7.4.1988 by the petitioner. The said plot was handed over petitioner on 22.4.1988 and he executed the lease cum sale agreement on 23.4.1988. stage, by order dated 13.11.1989 the second respondent cancelled the allotment petitioner and it was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.15779 of 1989 and this court order dated 28.11.1989 allowed the said writ petition giving liberty to the second respondent to dispose of the matter afresh giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In the meantime seems the petitioner was transferred to Hyderabad and on his transfer back to Madras applied for ‘no objection certificate’ in the month of February, 1988. No action has taken on the request of the petitioner and he did not commence his work. A show notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.5.1990 and he filed his objections on 21.5.1990 also appeared for personal enquiry on 11.7.1990. By the impugned order, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 11.4.1988 has been cancelled on the ground that allotment made was irregular. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent 24.10.1990 along with an application praying for stay. Since no stay has been granted, petitioner is before me with the above writ petition.

3. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the conversion made only on the proposal of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, that the same was accepted the Government as well as by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘MM.D.A") and as such there is no irregularity in the said conversion. further, alleged in the affidavit that the third respondent herein has initiated the proposal conversion since there was no need for the original proposal for which the earmarked. It is further alleged that no complaint has been received from the public, prejudice was caused to any member of the public and as such the reasons cancellation are unsustainable. It is also stated in the affidavit that the respondents estopped by the principle of promissory estoppel. It is further stated in the affidavit petitioner has accepted the allotment and acted upon the same, that the cancellation at this stage would affect prejudicially and therefore the cancellation order to be set aside. It is further stated in the affidavit that in so far as the order of cancellation issued by the second respondent in pursuance of the order of the first respondent concerned, no useful purpose was served by the enquiry conducted by the respondent.

4. The first respondent has not filed a counter affidavit.

5. Acounter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3. The facts are not It is claimed in the counter affidavit that on reconsideration the Government felt that irregularities were committed in the matter of allotment of plots which were earmarked for the public purpose were allotted to the individual for the residential and as such the Government wanted to put back the plots for the original use namely public purpose as per the approved lay out. It is further stated in the counter affidavit the amount paid by the petitioner was refunded with interest on 30.11.1989 12.11.1990. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that the public interest is more than the individual interest and as such the order of cancellation has been made.

6. Mr.K.Doraisamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends original order of allotment has been made only on the proposal submitted by