JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusM.C.D. THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

 A               JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
                                v.
         M.C.D. THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                               DECEMBER 17, 1992
 B
                    (N.M. KASLIWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.].

           Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14,19(e), 226-Delhi Electric Supp-
     ly Undertaking-Residential quarters built with assistance under Low Income
     Housing Scheme, 1954-Allotted to /ow-income group employees-Right of
 C   01>nership in the quarters-Whether could be claimed by the allottees-Reso/u-
     tion passed by Municipal Corporation in respect of its employees-4Vhether
     applicable on the basis of equality.                      .

          Administrative Law: Residential quarters allotted to low paid
 D   employees of a local body built under Low Income Housing Scheme,
     1954:-mght of ow,nership-l'romissory estoppel-Whether applicable. :

            The petitioners,· who were empl~yees of Delhi Electricity Supply
      Undertaking(DESU), filed writ petitfons before the High Court claiming.
      that the mmership ·or the residential quarters occupied by them be ·
- E- transferred' in their favour. They contended that the respondents bad
      obtained loan from the .Gove~nment of India, under the Low Income
      Housing Scheme,' 1954 to '.build their own houses, and as such the
      respondents have to transfer the ownership of the said quarters to them.
      The High. Court held that there was no compulsion on the part of the
  F . respondents to sell the houses to the petitioners as the Delhi Administra-
      tion by virtue of clause (b) of the letter dated 26.3.1957 while granting
      the· loan had stated that all the quarters constructed under· the low·
      income group housing scheme sh~uld be owned by DESU and not to be
      sold to its employees, and though the Delhi Administration stated that
      it badno   objection to the waiving or the said clause it was not waived.
   G The plea of promissory estoppel was also negatived. by the High Court
      on the ground that there ;as no document on record where any promise
      was held out to the petitioners that the ownership would be transferred
      to them and that 'the allotment of the flats were made to the petitioners
      in their capacity as employees of DESU and admittedly they were paying
'· H rent to the. respondents arid that no purchase pric~ had at any ti.he
                                          588
                                                                    --
                     JAGDISH PRASAD v. M.C.D.                      589

been demanded nor paid either in lump sum or in instalments. Aggrieved    A
by the High Court's judgment, the petitioners preferred the present
Special Leave Petitions.

       In addition to the contentions raised before the High Court, it
was contended before this Court that an option was given to the
respondents to sell the houses outright or on hire purchase basis or to   B
rent out to their low paid staff and in such a matter, option should
have been exercised of selling the houses outright or on hire purchase
basis, which was more in consonance with justice and public interest.
It was also contended that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has
passed a resolution to the effect that staff quarters in certain areas    c
allotted to its employees be sold on no profit no loss basis and so a
similar treatment ought to have been given to the petitioners.

     Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court

       HELD: 1. The petitioners were allotted the houses in view of the D
fact that they were employees of DESU. It is not disputed that the
petitioners during all these periods were paying rent to the respondents.
The petitioners have failed to show that any resolution was ever passed
by DESU for selling of the quarters in question to the petitioners .or
had passed any resolution for giving such quarters on hire purchase E
basis. The petitioners have no legal right under the scheme of 1954 to
claim any right of ownership in the quarters. occupied by them. Though
it may be desirable and a wishful thinking that the welfare state may
provide house to every citizen and specially the persons belonging to
low income group and falling in the lower strata of the society, yet this
is a stupendous task looking to the vast population of this country and F
the limited financial resources and as such no direction can be given
by the courts in this regard. (592 G, H; 593 A,B]

      2. Resolution No. 868 dated 14.1.1970 was passed by Municipal
Corporation of Delhi in respect of their own employees and the same G
cannot be applied to the employees of DESU. There is no question of
applying the principle of equality in such matters where the employer of
the petitioners is different and· DESU had not passed any resolution of
traQsferring the ownership of the houses in respect of its employees.
                                                               {593-C]    H
    590                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         3. Admittedly the petitioners are no longer in service of DESU and
    they are either persons who have retired from service or the legal repre-
    sentatives of the erstwhile employees. It cannot be denied that there is a
    great dearth of housing accommodation in Delhi and large employees of
    DESU who are already in service are standing in queue for allotment of
B   residential quarters. (593-D,E)

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (c)
    Nos. 9011, 9012, 9013, 9014, 9015 and 9016 of 1991.

          From the Judgment and Orders dated 14.3.1991, 19.3.1991, 22.3.1991
C   of the Delhi High Court in C.W. Nos. 'l1399/89, 2991/90, 399/91, 767/91,
    2948/90 & 140~/90.

          M.C. Bhandare and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Petitioners.

          Uday Sinha and A. Sharan for the Respondents;_
D
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .

            KASLIWAL, J. 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
E    residential quarters occupied by them be transferred in their favour. The
     High Court dismissed the writ petitioners by order dated 14.3.19'.>l. 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
F   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 incum-
    bent upon the respondents to transfer the· ownership of the said quarters
    to the petitioners. The High Court held that according to paragraph 8 of
G   the scheme of 1954 80% cash assistance had to be provided to the local
    bodies and the balance of ·20% was to be spent by such local bodies
    themselves. It w~ 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
H   thus held that there was no compulsion on the local bodies to sell the
              JAGDISH PRASAD v. M.C.D. [KASLIWAL, J.]                    591

houses to the allottees. It was further held by the High Court that no right A
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 Section 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 Commit- B
tee 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 peti_tion 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 clause (b) of this letter that all the C
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 D
the said clause was, in fact, waived.

       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    E
its earlier decision dated 14.3.1991 and as regards the argument of promis-
sory 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
                                                                                F
respondents. No p'urchase price had at any time been demanded nor paid
either in lump sum or in instalments.

      The DelhiHigh Court also dismissed the writ petition by order dated
22.3.1991 following its earlier decision dated 14th March, 1991 and 19th       G
March, 199L All the above Special Leave Petitions have been filed against
the aforesaid decisions of the High Court dated 14.3.1991, 193.1991 and
223.1991 and the same are disposed of by one common order.

      Mr. M.C. Bhandare, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of         H
    592                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A    the petitioners contended that the DESU being a local authority was bound .
     under the low income housing scheme, 1954 to transfer the ownership of
     the houses to the petitioners who were admittedly belonging to the low
     income group and entitled to the benefit of the scheme. It was also
     contended that the loan was advanced by the Central Government to the·
     respondents for constructing the houses for the low income group
B    employees and such amount could not have been diverted for any other
     purpose. It was also argued that an option was given to the respondents to
     sell those houses outright or on a hire purchase basis or to rent out to their
     low paid staff and in such kind of matter the option should have been
     exercised of selling the houses outright or on hire purchase basis, which
C    was more in consonance with justice and public interest. It was also
     submitted that by resolution No. 868 dated 14.1.1970 the Municipal Cor-
     poration of Delhi had resolved that the municipal quarters allotted to the
     municipal employees at Azadpur, Dhakka, Kamla Nagar, Bunglow Road,
     Minto Road, Mandaliau Road, Kashmiri Gate, Mori Gate, Bhargava Lane,
D    Civil Lines etc., be sold to the allottees on no profit no loss basis and the
     allottees be charged at 15% of the assessed cost of the premises in the first
    instance and the balance in easy instalments spread over a period of ten
    years. It was submitted that a similar treatment ought to have been given
    to the petitioner who were allotted quarters in Tripolia DESU colony who
    'Yere employees of DESU. It was also argued by Mr. Bhandare that the
E   respondents had given subsequent assurances also that the petitioners
    would be given ownership rights under the scheme of 1954 and on such
    assurances the petitioners did not take steps of acquiring ownership of any
    other residential quarters in Delhi. It was contended that the petitioners
    who are low paid employees of DESU should not be deprived the right of
     residence which is the duty and obligation of the Welfare state to provide
F
    housing accommodation to every citizen of this country.

           We have considered the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel
    for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It is not in dispute
G   that the petitioners were allotted the houses in view of the fact that they
    were employees of the DESU. It is also not disputed that the petitioners
    during all these periods were paying rent to the respondents. The
    petitioners have failed to show that any resolution was ever passed by the
    Delhi Electricity Supply Committee for selling of the quarters in question
    to the petitioners or had passed any resolution for giving such quarters on
H   hire purchase basis. The petitioners have no legal right under the scheme
                      JAGDISH PRASAD v. M.C.D. [KASLIWAL, J.]                     593

        of 1954 to claim any right of ownership in the quarters occupied by them. A
        Though it may be desirable and wishful thinking that the welfare state may
        provide house to every· citizen ·and specially the persons belonging to low
        income group and falling in the lower strata of the society. However this
        is a stuµendous task looking to the vast population of this country and the
        limited financial resources and as such no direction can be given by the B
        courts in this regard on the basis of a broad submission that the petitioners
        were entitled to such right as an ordinary citizen. Resolution No. 868 dated
        14.1.1970 was passed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of their
        own employees and the same cannot be applied tO the employees of
        DESU. Then; is no question of applying the principle of equality in such
        matters where the employer of the petitioners is different and the DESU C
        had ri~t passed any resolution of transferring the ownership of the houses
        in respect of its employees. It is not the c;ase of the petitioners that in
        respect of any other fow·paid employees of DESU similarly circumstanced
        as the petitioners had been given ownership of any houses.

               So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are admittedly no longer D
        in service of DESU at present and they are either persons who. have retired
        from service .or the legal representatives of the erstwhile employees. It
        cannot be denied that there is a great dearth of housing accommodation
        in D.elhi and large employees of OESU who are already in service are
        standing in queue for allotment of residential quarters.                      E
               We are thus clearly of the view that the petitioners have no legal right
I       to claim any right of ()wllership and.are not entitled to seek any mandamus
        from the court in this regard. The High Court has given cogent reasons in
        dismissing the writ peti~ions and we fuid no ground to take~ different view..
    ,   In the result we firid no force in these Speci"al Leave Petitions and the sam"e   F
    \
        are dismis5ed with no order as to costs.        .        .

        G.N.                                                     Petitions dismissed.

,.  I