No.224 of 2019, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.11.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4459 of 2014 allowing the writ petition was confirmed. It further provided that in case land is not available in that area, the Society could approach the Land Allotment Committee for fresh sponsorship in areas where the land is available. Sukhbir Singh, who was a resident of Vasant Kunj on 21.02.2003, stating that the Society was trying to illegally get an allotment in Vasant Kunj area for establishing a school whereas the sponsorship letter was issued by the Directorate of Education for Jasola area. The note regarding verification of the complaint was made on the same file in which in-principle approval was granted by the Lieutenant Governor and it was recorded that only after verification, the matter was to be proceeded further. the Deputy Director of Education, vide letter dated 29.01.2004, issued the Essentiality Certificate for Vasant Kunj area. The appellant again, vide letter dated 18.05.2012 in response to request letter of the Society dated 30.01.2011, informed that the request for allotment letter had been examined and duly rejected by the competent authority. ii )
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/non-compliance-of-undertaking-in-a-negotiable-instruments-act-case/
Quash the impugned letter dated 19/06/2003 and 18/05/2012 as the allotment to establish the middle school was approved by the Hon’ble on 24/03/2003 much prior to the notification of change in policy i.e. After exchange of pleadings, the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 15.11.2018, quashed the communications dated 19.06.2008 and 18.05.2012 and further directed the appellant to issue allotment letter forthwith. The appellant filed a Review Petition before the Division Bench registered as R.P.No.15 of 2022, which was disposed of, vide order dated 22.02.2022 without interfering with the main order, except for a clarification. ii) The internal notings are not decisions and do not confer any right, till such time, the decision taken on file is translated into allotment order and duly communicated to the allottee. iv) It was mandatory to possess an Essentiality Certificate and the Sponsorship Letter from the competent authority for specific zones where the institution was to be set up or Civil Appeal Nos. As such also the Society was not eligible for any allotment of educational site or for that matter even eligible for applying for setting up an educational institution in Vasant Kunj area. The policy had changed on 15.12.2003, the 1981 Rules had also been amended later on in April 2006, the rejection for allotment was made in 2008 and 2012, the Society for the first time challenged the rejection only in July 2014. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, defended the impugned orders while making the following submissions: i) The appellant had been continuously changing its stand in the pleadings filed before the High Court and before this Court. iii)
The Lieutenant Governor being the highest executive authority and having approved in- principle allotment in favour of the Society in Vasant Kunj area on 24.03.2003, nothing further was required to be deliberated upon and it was just a ministerial act of issuing the allotment letter pursuant to the said approval which was required.
The in-principle approval having been granted on 24.03.2003, there was no justification for the Society to wait for 11 years to file a writ petition in the year 2014 on the basis of the said in-principle approval of the Lieutenant Governor. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. Shyam Kishore Singh – (2020) 3 SCC 411, the issue regarding the delay and laches was Civil Appeal No.8072 of 2010 considered by this Court while dismissing the petition filed belatedly, seeking change in the date of birth in the service record.
One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. They are bound to be applied by Civil Appeal No.8072 of 2010 way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law.
Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. On the basis of an Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship Letter for Jasola Area, no allotment could have been proposed for Vasant Kunj area. The appellant has specifically stated that Jasola area was in Zone 25 (now Zone 29) whereas Vasant Kunj area was in Zone 20. The respondents have not been able to establish or even prima facie establish that the facts as narrated by the appellant and as recorded above were incorrect. 7
The issue relating to internal notings as to whether it would confer any right or not has been adequately dealt with and settled by series of judgements of this Court.
For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/lack-of-sanction-under-pc-act-in-summoning-order/
Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.” [Emphasis supplied] Civil Appeal Nos.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. HELLO HOME EDUCATION SOCIETY (2024 INSC 33)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003659-003660 / 2023
