JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being low income group employees of the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (in short 'DESU) filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi claiming that the ownership of the residential quarters occupied by them be transferred in their favour. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions by order dated 14-3-1991. The contention of the petitioners in the High Court was that these quarters were allotted to them, in their capacity as employees of DESU. The Government of India had granted a loan to the State Government for the purpose of enabling the persons in low income groups to build their own houses. According to the petitioners the respondents had obtained such loan and constructed the quarters in the colony and as such it was incumbent upon the respondents to transfer the ownership of the said quarters to the petitioners. The High Court held that according to paragraph 8 of the scheme of 1954, 80% cash assistance had to be provided to the local bodies and the balance of 2O% was to be spent by such local bodies themselves. It was further stated that "the ownership of these houses will vest with the local bodies which may rent out to their low paid staff". It was also stated that the local bodies are, however, free to sell these houses outright or on a hire purchase basis to their low paid staff. The High Court thus held that there was no compulsion on the 'local bodies to sell the houses to the allottees. It was further held by the High Court that no right can be exercised. by the petitioners as there was nothing to show that any such resolution had been passed by the respondent - Delhi Electricity Supply Committee which is the authority under S. 44 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The High Court also observed that in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents it had been stated in paragraph 7 that no resolution had been passed either by the Delhi Electricity Supply Committee or by the Municipal Corporation Delhi with regard to selling of the quarters to the petitioners or any one of them. The High Court also gave the reason for dismissing the writ petition that the loan was granted by the Delhi Administration to the Delhi State Electricity Board vide their letter dated 26-3-1957 and it was said in Cl. (b) of this letter that all the quarters constructed under the low income group housing scheme should be owned by the Delhi State Electricity Board and should not be sold to their employees. The High Court further observed that it was true that vide letter dated 6-9-1984 the Delhi Administration did say that they would have no objection to the waiving of the said clause but there is no decision that the said clause was, in fact, waived.

(2.) After the aforesaid decision dated 14-3-1991 the Delhi High Court by its order dated 19-3-1991 dismissed similar writ. petitions in which an additional argument of promissory estoppel was considered and decided against the petitioners. In the order dated 19-3-1991 reliance was placed on its earlier decision dated 14-3-1991 and as regards the argument of promissory estoppel /it was held that there was no document on the record filed by the petitioners where any promise was held out to any of the petitioners that the ownership will be transferred to them. The allotment of the flats were made to the petitioners in their capacity as employees of DESU and it was an admitted position that the petitioners were paying rent to 'the respondents. No purchase price had at any time been demanded nor paid either in lump sum or in instalments.

(3.) The Delhi High Court also dismissed the writ petition by order dated 22-3-1991 following its earlier decision dated l4th March, 1991 and 19th March, 1991. All the above Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the aforesaid decisions of the High Court dated 14-3-1991, 19-3-1991 and 22-3-1991 and the same are disposed of by ONE common order.