LPA 605 of 2010. Case: Meenakshi Rai Katariya Vs DDA. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | LPA 605 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Jayant Bhushan with C. Mohan Rao, Adv. and For Respondents: Rajiv Bansal, Adv. |
| Judges | Dipak Misra, C.J. and Manmohan Singh , J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 14; Contract Act (9 of 1872) - Section 23 |
| Citation | AIR 2011 Del 56 |
| Judgement Date | August 20, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Dipak Misra, C.J.
1. Questioning the vulnerability of the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5128/2010, the present intra-court appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that Clause 2(iv) of the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008 (for short 'the Scheme') is unconstitutional being opposed to public policy and also being in transgression of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the definition of the term 'family' as defined in the Scheme prohibits the members of the family to submit individual applications and imposes such terms and conditions that are fundamentally arbitrary which invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That apart, it curtails the rights of the appellant to enter into contract with the DDA as a consequence of which the provisions enshrined under Section 23 of the Contract Act is violated.
3. The aforesaid stand was resisted by the respondent-DDA contending, inter alia, that the appellant and her husband had applied under the Scheme and both their application were put in draw of lots and the appellant was the fortunate one to get draw in her favour. At that juncture, the authority noticed that both the husband and wife had applied which was in contravention to the policy and played foul of Clause 22 of the Scheme which deals with misrepresentation or suppression of facts and the consequences. It was also urged that once the appellant had participated in the Scheme knowing fully well the nature and tenor of the Scheme, it cannot take a somersault and challenge the Scheme.
4. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the appellant had applied, under the Scheme with eyes wide open and knew the very purpose and purport of Clause 22 of the Scheme and, therefore, she cannot turn back and challenge the Scheme. On the aforesaid foundation, the writ petition was dismissed.
5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge has fallen into error by not testing the policy on the ground urged but non-suited the appellant on the ground that she was aware of all the terms and conditions as enshrined in the brochure/scheme though it was necessitous to delve into the issues urged. It is further submitted that the Scheme/policy floated by the DDA is irrational as there is no reasonableness in such a definition of the 'family' as a consequence of which all the family members are clubbed together as a singular unit to submit a singular application. It is urged by Mr. Bhushan that it could have been reasonable had the scheme postulated that one family can have only one allotment but the restriction imposed qua family pertaining to submission of an application suffers from unreasonability and, therefore, invites the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned senior counsel further proponed that the said stipulation runs counter to public policy and smacks of arbitrariness and denies an individual to make an offer and further violates the stipulations under Section 23 of the Contract Act. It is canvassed by him that the classification made excludes the other individual members of the family and such exclusion has no intelligible differentia and nexus with the object to be achieved, for the purpose of the scheme is to provide accommodation to the people without houses of their own and in that context to treat a family as a singular entity is sans objective.
6. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in opposition of the aforesaid submissions, contended that regard being had to the equitable distribution of largesse, such a condition was engrafted in the Scheme and, therefore, no fault can be found with it. It is propounded that once the appellant had made an endeavour to take the benefit of the Scheme and deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the Scheme, she cannot turn back to challenge its validity.
7. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the Scheme dated 16.9.2008. Clause 2 of the said Scheme deals with eligibility. It reads as under:
"ELIGIBILITY
-
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial