Case: M/S Sethi Auto Service Station  Vs. Delhi Development Authority

amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken fairly and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate expectation might be affected. Therefore, a legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited. [Vide Hindustan Development Corporation (supra)] 28. Bearing in mind the aforestated legal position, we may now advert to the facts at hand. In the light of the factual scenario noted above, the short question arising for determination is whether rejection of appellants claim for resitement on the basis of the revised policy of the year 2003, their substantive legitimate expectation of being considered under the old policy of 1999 has been defeated? 29. In order to adjudicate upon the controversy, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the two policies being pressed into service by the rival parties. In the guidelines issued in 1999, the relevant eligibility criteria was in the following terms: "iv) The resitement sought due to reduction in sale on account of any planned scheme/project may be entertained by DDA, provided it is referred by an Oil Company/Ministry mentioning that the sale level is below the prescribed limit and petrol pump is not feasible in its existing location." 30. According to the said guidelines, a request for resitement on the ground of reduction in sales level below the prescribed limit could be entertained by the DDA provided the proposal was referred by the oil company or the Ministry. The parties are ad-idem that the cases of both the appellants for relocation were recommended by the two Oil Companies, viz., IOC and HPCL, on account of expected fall in sales because of the construction of the flyover and grid separator. However, before a final decision on the representation of the appellants could be taken, the policy of the DDA underwent revision in the year 2003. The criterion for allotment of land by the DDA for resitement of existing petrol pumps was changed. Under the revised policy, dated 20th June, 2003, a case for resitement could be considered by the DDA only under the following circumstances: "A. Resitement:1) Resitement will be made only when the existing petrol pump/gas godown site is utilized for a planned project/scheme which directly necessitates the closing down of the petrol pump/gas godown site. No resitement will be made on any other grounds. As the petrol pumps will be disposed on annual Licence fee basis rather than on upfront payment, if an allottee does not find the business lucrative due to certain other reasons, he can always chose to surrender the site.2) In all cases of resitement, the existing rates for the new site will be charged and the possession of the old site will be handed over to DDA.3) The alternative site will be allotted through computerized draw from the available sites. For holding the draw at least 3 sites must be available on the date of holding the draw." 31.It is plain that under the new policy resitement of a petrol pump etc. is possible only when the existing petrol pump is utilized for a planned project/scheme, which directly necessitates the closing down of the petrol pump. Under the new policy, resitement on account of fall in sales etc. is not contemplated. In fact, resitement on any other ground is specifically ruled out. It is also evident from the new policy that in the event of DDA permitting resitement, the possession of the old site has to be delivered to the DDA, which presupposes that the old site was also allotted by the DDA. As noted above, the existing sites on which the two petrol pumps in question are operating were allotted by the Airport Authority of India and not by the DDA. 32. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts in hand, in our judgment, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as explained above, is not attracted in the instant case. It is manifest that even under the 1999 policy, on which the entire edifice of appellants substantive expectation of getting alternative land for resitement is built does not cast any obligation upon the DDA to relocate the petrol pumps. The said policy merely laid down a criterion for relocation and not a mandate that under the given circumstances the DDA was obliged to provide land for the said purpose. Therefore, at best the appellants had an expectation of being considered for resitement. Their cases were duly considered, favourable recommendations were also made but by the time the final decision-making authority considered the matter, the policy underwent a change and the cases of the appellants did not meet the new criteria for allotment laid down in the new policy. We are convinced that apart from the fact that there is no challenge to the new policy, which seems to have been conceived in public interest in the light of the changed economic scenario and liberalized regime of permitting private companies to set up petrol outlets, the decision of the DDA in declining to allot land for resitement of petrol pumps, a matter of largesse, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable warranting interference. Moreover, with the change in policy, any direction in favour of the appellants in this regard would militate against the new policy of 2003. In our opinion, therefore, the principle of legitimate expectation has no application to the facts at hand. 33. In view of the foregoing discussion, the

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts in hand, in our judgment, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as explained above, is not attracted in the instant case. It is manifest that even under the 1999 policy, on which the entire edifice of appellants substantive expectation of getting alternative land for resitement is built does not cast any obligation upon the DDA to relocate the petrol pumps. The said policy merely laid down a criterion for relocation and not a mandate that under the given circumstances the DDA was obliged to provide land for the said purpose. Therefore, at best the appellants had an expectation of being considered for resitement. Their cases were duly considered, favourable recommendations were also made but by the time the final decision-making authority considered the matter, the policy underwent a change and the cases of the appellants did not meet the new criteria for allotment laid down in the new policy. We are convinced that apart from the fact that there is no challenge to the new policy, which seems to have been conceived in public interest in the light of the changed economic scenario and liberalized regime of permitting private companies to set up petrol outlets, the decision of the DDA in declining to allot land for resitement of petrol pumps, a matter of largesse, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable warranting interference. Moreover, with the change in policy, any direction in favour of the appellants in this regard would militate against the new policy of 2003. In our opinion, therefore, the principle of legitimate expectation has no application to the facts at hand.