The court can interfere in contractual matters if there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and arbitrariness. Mere participation in the auction does not create a legitimate expectation. The authorities have the power to introduce a new policy for shop allotment.

This writ petition is filed challenging the notification of the first respondent published in “Dinakaran” newspaper dated 17. 2009 informing the petitioner about the cancellation of auction scheduled to be held on 1. 2009 at Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, Chennai.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in nutshell are set out here under:

1. The second respondent had published a notification dated 1. 2009 in leading newspapers inviting applications for allotment of shops of various sizes, scheduled to be held on 24. 2009 at 11.00 a.m. at Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, Chennai. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner applied for a shop in question and paid 20% of E.M.I., and Rs. 1,000/- towards registration fees. Though the drawl of lots was fixed on 24. 2009, later it was postponed to 5. 2009. Though it was stated that the postponement was initiated in view of the General Election for Lok Sabha, even after the election, the auction was not conducted. The petitioner made numerous enquiries about the same. While so, the first respondent, vide notification dated 17. 2009, informed that allotment of shops is cancelled due to administrative reasons and the initial deposit amount as well as registration fees would be returned to the applicants by way of demand draft.

3. Additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the following facts have been set out:

Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. 1. The petitioner was made to believe to participate in the auction process. The respondents have neither reserved their right to cancel the notification or to modify the terms for conducting the drawl of lots either in the notification or in the application. In the absence of such an indication, the cancellation of the drawl of lots is absolutely arbitrary and consequently, the same is unsustainable.

3. 2. The respondents cannot now change their policy to the detriment of the petitioner, that too, for administrative reasons. The respondents are estopped from changing the existing policy to some other policy. The petitioner although have no legal right, but could base their right on the basis of legitimate expectations which have been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court.

3. 3. He has invested huge amount with the second respondent for initial deposit of 20% of the total value of the shop, without any rhyme or reason, the same cannot be cancelled.

4. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein the following facts have been set out:

4. 1. The drawl of lot scheduled to be held on 6. 2009 was cancelled and it was also informed to the applicants that 20% of the initial deposit amount and the registration fees would be returned to them. It was decided to revise the policy in such a way that the allotment of shops in Vegetables, Fruits and Flower Markets may be allotted based on type of shops in all blocks, instead of calling applications shops number-wise. By this system, all the shops can be allotted through drawl of lot. In the present system, there is a chance for declining the allotment by some successful applicants. It will lead to forfeiting of the initial deposit, which will avoid unhealthy practice of declining the shops after allotment.

4. 2. It was decided to allot the shops in the market to the wholesale traders in Chennai Metropolitan Area instead of calling applications from all the general public because the market is meant only for wholesale traders in perishable goods. Further, it was decided to introduce one shop to one family to provide equal opportunity to everyone.

3. The petitioner have absolutely no locus standi to question the policy decision of the respondents since the same is done in the interest of public and to discourage speculative business. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the power of judicial review in contractual matters is very limited and only i