Mere Internal Notings In Departmental Files And In-Principle Approvals Do Not Confer A Vested Right: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that mere internal notings in a departmental file and in-principle approvals do not confer a vested right.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) denying allotment of land to a society seeking to build a school in Vasant Kunj.
The Court emphasized the imperative of the State to transfer land through public auction or tender invitation under the amendment of 2006 of Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Act).
The Court noted that the society was ineligible to apply for a site under the original rules due to the lack of a requisite sponsorship letter.
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “until and unless the decision taken on file is converted into a final order to be communicated and duly served on the concerned party, no right accrues to the said party. Mere notings and in-principle approvals do not confer a vested right”.
Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Respondent.
The Hello Home Educational Society aimed to establish a Junior High School in Jasola, New Delhi, securing an Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship Letter. However, a recommendation erroneously favoured land allotment in Vasant Kunj. A complaint led to a CBI inquiry, and despite in-principle approval, no allotment occurred. The DDA, citing a policy change, insisted on auctioning educational plots. The Single Judge allowed the Society's appeal, directing allotment. The Division Bench upheld the policy change as non-retrospective. The Review Petition clarified but maintained the main order. Appeals against these were filed, with an interim stay, and no allotment has been granted.
The DDA filed appeals challenging the High Court's judgment, which upheld the Single Judge's decision favouring the Society. The challenge also extended to a Review Petition, where the main order was clarified regarding the substitution of 'Jasola' with 'Vasant Kunj.'
In the case, the Court accepted the DDA’s argument on the perceived delay in approaching the Court. The Society was granted in-principle approval, which should have prompted it to assert its rights promptly. However, the Society waited for 11 years before filing a writ petition in 2014 based on the in-principle approval of the Lieutenant Governor. The Court noted that the prolonged delay in filing the writ petition could have been sufficient grounds for its dismissal.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the original Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship Letter pertained specifically to setting up an educational institution in the Jasola Area. Therefore, the allotment for Vasant Kunj based on these certificates was deemed unjustified. The Court also noted an error in treating Jasola and Vasant Kunj as the same zone without a basis.
The Court also noted that per the policy decision and subsequent amendments in 2006, land allotment would occur through auction. Since there was no challenge to these decisions, the Writ of Mandamus sought solely on the in-principle approval was considered untenable due to changed circumstances preceding the writ petition.
Finally, the Court addressed the issue related to internal notings and their potential to confer rights in line with established legal principles. It was emphasized that until a decision on file is transformed into a final order, communicated, and duly served on the concerned party, no vested right is conferred. Mere notings and in-principle approvals do not grant such rights.
The Court referred to the case of Municipal Committee v Jai Narayan and Company and Another [(2022) SCC Online SC 376], and noted that a change in policy decision taken on December 15 2023 mentioned that even pending allotment matters were to be dealt per the said change, i.e., of holding auctions. This decision of policy change was never challenged, as is apparent from the relief claimed in the petition. Therefore, the settled procedure to be followed was only to provide land by way of auction of educational sites and not by way of any allotment. It is also the settled position of law that whenever the State intends to transfer any land, the resort should be by public auction or inviting tenders.
In this case, the Court observed that the Society did not have the necessary Sponsorship Letter for establishing the school in the Vasant Kunj area, and therefore, it was not even eligible to apply for procuring a site in the Vasant Kunj area under the original rules. Further, it is well settled that if any allotment had been made contrary to the existing policy and rules, the same would not form a basis of benefit being extended to another society as under law negative parity is not recognized or approved rather it is disapproved.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Division Bench and Single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed, as it was concluded that relief granted to the Respondent Society was in serious error.
Cause Title: Delhi Development Authority v Hello Home Education Society (2024 INSC 33)
Appearance:
Appellant: Nitin Mishra, Shreeyash U Lalit, Mitali Gupta, Anandrita, Akshita Goyal, Aditya Goyal, Apurva Gaur and Shubham Saigal Advocates
Respondent: Vinod Kumar Tewari, Dilip Singh, Raj Lakshmiverma, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari and Priyanka Dubey Advocates
