CWP No.15584 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 15584 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25 - 11 - 2009 Sube Singh etc. ....Petitioners v. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ....Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.K.S.Banyana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as `UHBVNL') in the year 2001 intended to construct 33 K.V. Sub Station in Village Jhansa. For the welfare of the residents, the Gram Panchayat came forward to provide the necessary land. The land offered by the Gram Panchayat was not found suitable for constructing 33 K.V. Sub Station, Power Station in Village Jhansa. Petitioner Sube Singh was Sarpanch at that time. He was owner in possession of 1 Acre 5 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land. His land was found suitable. He offered to give 1 acre and 4 Kanals of land to respondent No.1 – UHBVNL and exchanged his CWP No.15584 of 2008 [2] land in lieu of 3 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land which vested in the Gram Panchayat. Petitioners who are father and son had not accepted any money from the Gram Panchayat. Sum and substance of the case is that for 1 acre and 4 kanals of land, petitioners got 3 kanals and 10 marlas of land, therefore, they had to forego 1 acre (8 Kanals) of land. It is averred in the writ petition that this was done as petitioners were persuaded by the officials of UHBVNL to give land on the promise that 24 hours regular power supply to the tube-wells situated in the land of the petitioners shall be provided. To fortify the averment made that the petitioners had offered the land and in exchange had taken less land due to the promise extended that 24 hours regular electric power supply will be provided, reliance has been placed on the communication addressed by the Executive Engineer, C/W Division, UHBVN, Panchkula. This letter has been attached as Annexure P2. The letter read as under:- “Subject: Constn. Of 33 KV S/stn. at Jhansa. It is submitted that 33 KV S/Stn. Jhansa is being constg. In the Pvt. Land belongs to Sh.Sube Singh S/o Sh.Mann Singh & Sh.Ranbir Singh S/o Sh.Sube Singh of residents of Vill. Jhansa which has been internally exchanged in between Gram Panchayat Vill. Jhansa & above Pvt. Land owners. While furnishing an affidavits in this regard, the Pvt. Land owner has also requested there by to provide the 24 hours regular electric Power Supply to his tubewells installed in his land bearing A/c No.JAP-152 & JAP-177 (copy attached). Since the land offered by gram Panchayat Vill. Jhansa was not CWP No.15584 of 2008 [3] found suitable to the technical point of view, therefore, efforts were made at their level to exchange the land in between them so as to meet the requirement of the deptt. Further the land has been offered free of cost and the civil constn. works are at advance stage. The fulfill the commitment made in the interest of departmental work as well as to avoid any delay in completion of scheduled work. It is requested that the concerned higher authorities may be approached to provide the 24 hours regular Power Supply facility to their tubewells bearing above A/c Nos. An early action in the matter is requested because the Pvt. Land owners are pressing for the same.” Executive Engineer in categorical term had stated that a commitment was made in the interest of departmental working that petitioners will be provided 24 hours regular power supply facility. Thereafter, Annexure P3, another communication was sent by the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Shahbad. The relevant portion of the letter read as under:- “You are therefore requested to check the feasibility to the 24 hrs. supply to above A/c Nos. to fulfill the commitment made in the interest of departmental work.” It is apparent that the officials of the department had made commitment on behalf and in the interest of organisation UHBVNL. Thereafter, petitioners served notice Annexure P4. The notice was replied by the S.D.O. Operations, UHBVNL, Ajrana Kalan. The S.D.O. replied that power supply for a tubewell is not feasible as 24 hours line is provided for domestic CWP No.15584 of 2008 [4] purpose. Petitioner No.1 was directed to contact S.D.O. for fruitful solution. On 24.10.2007, S.D.O., Operations, Ajrana Kalan wrote to Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Shahabad that office has already submitted an estimate for supply of power in compliance with the directions of the office. The commitment and promise made by the officials bore no fruit. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. In the written statement, respondents had taken a stand that officials who made the commitments and promise were not authorised to do so and UHBVNL cannot provide 24 hours power supply. Promise and commitment extended by Executive Engineer in letters Annexures P2 and P3 ought to have raised the legitimate expectation of the petitioners. Therefore, it becomes necessary to rely upon the observations of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations and others v. Union of India and others, (2006)8 SCC 399. It will be apposite to reproduce the following observations of their Lordships in the above said case:- “33. We are also not impressed by the argument that all medical benefits and facilities must be provided to ex- servicemen under the doctrine of “legitimate expectation”. The doctrine of “legitimate expectation” is a “latest recruit” to a long list of concepts fashioned by the courts for review of administrative actions. No doubt, the doctrine has an important place in the development of administrative law and particularly law relating to “judicial review”. Under the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being CWP No.15584 of 2008 [5] treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. In such a situation, if a decision is taken by an administrative authority adversely affecting his interest, he may have justifiable grievance in the light of the fact of continuous receipt of the benefit, legitimate expectation to receive the benefit or privilege which he has enjoyed all throughout. Such expectation may arise either from the express promise or from consistent practice which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue. 34. The expression “legitimate expectation” appears to have been originated by Lord Denning, M.R. In the leading decision of Schmidt v. Secy. Of State. In Attorney General of Hog Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu, Lord Fraser referring to Schmidt stated : (All ER p. 350 h-j) “The expectations may be based on some statement or undertaking by, or on behalf of, the public authority which has the duty of making the decision, if the authority has, through its officers, acted in a way that would make it unfair or inconsistent with good administration for him to be denied such an inquiry.” (emphasis supplied) 35. In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that good administration demands observance of reasonableness and CWP No.15584 of 2008 [6] where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even in the absence of a provision of law, it should adhere to such practice without depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised.” Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the case taking into consideration the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court and the communications issued by the Executive Engineer and S.D.O. Of the respondent-UHBVNL. Even though, this Court is conscious that in the case of Confederation of Ex- servicemen Associations's case (supra) on the facts of that case relief was not granted holding that no right of legitimate expectation vests in Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations's case (supra). On 25.8.2009, the matter was adjourned to 17.11.2009. On 17.11.2009 the matter was adjourned for today as Mr.Narender Hooda, counsel for the respondents prayed that an adjournment be granted so that he is able to seek instructions from the concerned quarters. The adjournment was granted primarily on the ground to explore the possibility whether the respondents can provide any solace to the petitioners who due to the commitments and promise made by the officials had agreed to exchange their land. It is not disputed that 1 acre 4 kanals of land was exchanged for 3 kanals and 10 marlas of land. On the bidding of the respondents, today Mr.Narender Hooda has taken a somersault and stated that though the commitment made was unauthorised but the land given to the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat was in consonance of the resolution and the resolution specifically state that no loss will be caused to the Gram Panchayat. The tenor of the resolution state that interest of the Gram Panchayat has been taken care of so that CWP No.15584 of 2008 [7] petitioner No.1 is not accused that he had taken benefit of the Gram Panchayat land. The matter of fact remain that petitioner had parted 1 acre 4 kanals of land for 3 kanals and 10 marlas of land. Even if the contention of Mr.Narender Hooda is accepted that the land is of equal value, yet there is no need for the petitioners to exchange their land. Admittedly, both the lands are agricultural. The harvest from 1 acre and 4 kanals and from 3 kanals and 10 marlas cannot be equal. The petition raise another important issue whether to facilitate development work, illiterate villagers who to earn goodwill or promise made believe the officials of the rank of Executive Engineer, to whom they perceive to be an important functionary should execute memorandum of understanding with the Chairman or Managing Director. Executive Engineer had gone to the site and facilitated exchange of the land for construction of 33 K.V. Sub Station. The credibility of the respondent-state is at stake. Therefore, dismissal of the writ petition on two legal and technical grounds that the promise was extended by the persons who were not authorised may leave the citizens with wounds unhealed for all times to come. Their generations may curse the fore-fathers and propagate to take a lesson not to believe the words extended by the officials of respondents. Respondent-UHBVNL is none else but instrumentality of the State. A sour soul, unsatisfied citizen may feel cheated forever for the conduct of the respondent-State. This will not auger well for the honour of the State, who claims itself to be Welfare State. Even though this Court cannot issue mandamus that petitioners be supplied 24 hours power supply as promised by the officials of respondent-UHBVNL, yet due to the promises made by the officials of the respondents who were responsible officers, petitioners CWP No.15584 of 2008 [8] are required to be compensated in monetary terms. To balance equities, it is ordered that petitioners be granted a compensation of Rs.One lac. The compensation has not been quantified to assess the loss but to save the situation in which petitioners landed themselves, as the repercussion of the action of the respondents may erode the faith of the people and hamper the development work for common purpose. With these directions, the writ petition stand disposed of. No costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 25, 2009. JUDGE RC