Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgments of the Allahabad High Court. The first is dated 31.07.20191; the same appeal impugns an order dismissing the review petition filed against the first impugned judgment, dated 13.04.2021. The second appeal is directed against three orders issued in contempt proceedings, initiated by the respondent, against the appellant.
Brief Facts:
The appellant, published a scheme in 2010 for allotment of industrial plots in Noida. The scheme was advertised. Application forms for registration of the available plots were available with a designated bank. Under the terms of the scheme apart from individuals, partnership firms were also eligible to apply for allotment. The applicants had to furnish a project report, background detail of promoters, audited accounts and balance sheets and other relevant details. Allotment was to be made on the basis of interviews of registered applicants, by a screening committee, about the details of the project. It is the common case of the parties that the club applied to the Noida Authority for two plots. Apparently, Noida decided to terminate the scheme, based upon its assessment of the feasibility of the scheme. This decision was published and made known to all concerned including the club through the public domain. Thereafter, Noida sought to refund the amount deposited by the club to it. The club was aggrieved and approached the Allahabad High Court by filing the writ petition contending that according to its information, Noida received 95 applications of which 65 were rejected and 15 allotments were made. The High Court by its first impugned judgment was of the opinion that Noida’s failure to call the club’s representative for interview, was not supported by any reason and that its candidature was never considered for allotment.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment was passed on the basis of a wrong factual statement. It was contended that this officer not only made misleading statements on affidavit, but also facilitated the transfer of the plot, allotted to the club, to another entity. It was contended that these acts were unauthorized. It was argued that since the writ petitioner could not lay claim for a plot, but only a right to be considered, in an extant scheme, the first impugned judgment is erroneous as it proceeds to hold that the club had some right to allotment of a plot. It was argued that the club was disentitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, because it did not disclose the full and true facts.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the High Court in review should not be disturbed. It was submitted that NOIDA gave no reason for the closure of the scheme; its affidavit before the High Court did not provide any reason why the club’s application was overlooked or why its representative was not called for interview like in the case of other applicants.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC observed that the club did not challenge the closure of the scheme; rather its case was that Noida’s omission to consider its application for allotment was arbitrary. Once the club accepted the closure of the scheme and did not challenge it, there was no question of its agitating any right or grievance regarding non-consideration of its application.
SC stated that it is well established that when a policy decision like the closure or termination of a benefit available to a class of persons, is not challenged, the consequence of such closure (which is the impact on the pendency of those wishing to be considered) cannot ordinarily be subject matter of a grievance. What the club had was a right to be considered for allotment of the plots its applied for, so long as the old scheme subsisted.
SC stated that it is clear that the club could not have claimed that its application had to be dealt with in terms of the old scheme, which had ended in 2012. The direction of the High Court, could only have meant that the applications had to be revived, and dealt with the scheme prevailing as on the date of its consideration. The interpretation placed by the High Court, that there were existing plots, which could have been dealt with under the old scheme is entirely misplaced.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “whether the grievance was justified and well founded, given that state agencies develop and allot such industrial units at prices which are reasonable, and that an applicant subsequently succeeded in securing a plot, are relevant facts, which a court should be appraised of. The failure by the club, to do so, in this court’s opinion, disentitled it to any relief. For the foregoing reasons, Noida’s appeals are allowed; the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are hereby set aside.”
Case Title: Ritu Maheshwari v. M/S. Promotional Club
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3616 - 3618 OF 2022
Decided on: 5th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
