M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors

3. The appellant firms-M/s Sethi Auto Service Station and M/s Anand Service Station own two petrol outlets adjacent to each other, located at NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi since 1994. The land for the purpose was allotted by the Airport Authority of India (for short `AAI') whereas the petrol pumps were allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation (for short `IOC') and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short `HPCL') to Sethi and Anand respectively. According to the appellants, in the year 1999, a proposal was formulated for construction of an eight-lane express highway between Delhi and Gurgaon, including construction of a flyover/grid separator at Mahipalpur crossing, where the two petrol pumps in question are located. Claiming unviability in the operation of the two petrol pumps on account of construction of the flyover and relying on the policy framed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short `the DDA') on 14th October, 1999, the 2 two oil companies approached the DDA, respondent No.1 in this appeal, for "re-sitement" of both the petrol pumps. It was claimed that, in the first instance, IOC and HPCL had corresponded with the original allotment agency, viz. AAI, for re-sitement but some time in the year 2000, AAI informed the Oil Companies that it did not have any alternative site for allotment due to non-availability of land. The appellants also relied on the letter issued by the National Highway Authority of India (for short `NHAI') confirming that the proposed dual highway would be developed along with the existing alignment of NH-8 and that no access would be provided to any retail outlet or private property along the highway. Supporting the claim of the appellants, the State Level Coordinator (Oil Industry) also wrote a letter to the DDA on 10th May, 2002, inter alia, pointing out that the construction work on the grid separator had commenced; after its completion, all vehicles would cross over the separator and would not have any access to the two petrol pumps in question for refueling thereby rendering them economically unviable. 3

4. The stand of the appellants was that request for re-

7. None of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants found favour with the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Judge, by a well reasoned order, came to the conclusion that the appellants could not claim an 7 enforceable right merely on the basis of the proposal leading to the recommendation by the Technical Committee as it did not amount to an order or decision of the DDA, particularly when its competent authority had rejected the request of the appellants. The learned Judge also observed that at best the appellants had a mere expectation of being considered for re-sitement. The stand of the DDA that in view of the fact that a new policy had been formulated in June, 2003, it was within its right to apply the same was also found to be in order. Thus, the learned Judge found that the DDA had acted fairly and reasonably in rejecting appellants' prayer for re-sitement. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were dismissed.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent as applicable to the High Court of Delhi. Both the appeals having been dismissed, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

15. In view of the above legal position and in the light of the factual scenario as highlighted in the order of the learned Single Judge, we find it difficult to hold that the recommendation of the Technical Committee of the DDA fructified into an order conferring legal right upon the appellants. We may note that during the course of hearing 4 (2003) 5 SCC 413 13 of the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge had summoned the original records wherein the representations of the appellants were dealt with. On a perusal thereof, the learned Judge observed that the proposal for re-sitement was apparently approved up to the level of the Commissioner and the matter was placed before the Technical Committee, which approved it on 28th November, 2002. Thereafter, the DDA took further steps on the basis of field inspection to earmark the two sites; the entire matter was placed before the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee in its decision some time in 2003 noted that the matter had to be placed for disposal in accordance with the policy. Some time in July, 2004 after the conclusion of certain inquiries into the complaints regarding re-sitement, the issue of relocation was again taken up and a detailed note was made on 12th August, 2004, recounting the steps taken including the discussion of the Screening Committee in its meeting on 21st November, 2003. It is pointed out that the note records that the proposals for re-sitement were not finally approved. 14 The learned Judge has also observed that the note dated 21st November, 2003 along with the inspection report and the proposal for re-sitement was put up before the Commissioner (LB) who, on 9th September, 2004 recorded the following comments:

18. We may, now, consider the plea relating to the legitimate expectation of the appellants in terms of DDA's policy dated 14th October, 1999 and the impact of change of the policy, in June, 2003, thereon.

33.In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.