Another application was filed by them before the Permanent Lok Adalat for number companypliance of orders of Ministry of Urban Development despite availability of flats.
The authorities of the respondent having participated in the meeting with the Minister of Urban Development, pursuant whereto the said letter dated 24.08.2000 was issued, the respondent was bound to implement the same in view of the principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel.
A Special Leave Petition preferred thereagainst was dismissed.
By a judgment and order dated 24.07.1995, the said application was allowed holding that the action of the respondent in number companysidering the cases of the appellants for allotment through the process of draw of lots amounted to unfair trade practice, apart from being unilateral and unjustified.
Registrants under the Scheme were entitled to apply therefor.
Indisputably, the Scheme was an independent one.
F.1 Misc.
As a large number of flats had been vacant, as would appear from the statement made by the Vice Chairman of the respondent on 8.11.2002 by reason of allotment of the flats, numberody else would be prejudiced.
Appellants herein thereafter filed a revision application before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the respondent preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and by an order dated 30.11.1998 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.
They were asked to make deposits.
They declined to do so.
For the purpose of allotment of flats, lots were drawn on various occasions, viz.,
Appellants did number respond to the said numberice.
By an order dated 20.03.2006, the said petition was dismissed.
Respondent did number agree thereto.
Mr. Ram Prakash, representing the appellants, in support of this appeal inter alia would submit As in the Brochure, a policy of reservation was provided, the High Court companymitted a serious illegality in opining that numberlegal right accrued in their favour in terms of the said letter dated 24.08.2000.
Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court which was marked as Civil Writ No.
Appellants herein pursuant to an advertisement issued in this behalf registered themselves their registration numbers being 13463, 16602 and 13464.
Other similar schemes following the same were also wholly independent of each other.
They were called upon to pay the price specified therefor and to take delivery thereof.
652 654 of 2006 has also been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2006.
19633 35 of 2005.
Respondent floated a scheme known as Fifth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982 for short the Scheme .
By an order dated 25.11.1999, the National Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants herein relying inter alia on Clause 16 of the Brochure wherein it had categorically been stated that DDA reserves the right to withdraw the Scheme at any time.
It was further stated that in the case registrants of 5th SFS did number avail of this opportunity or if they surrendered allotment allocation after being successful, they shall be deemed to have opted out of the scheme and action shall be taken to refund their registration money.
It was a Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme.
The Act was enacted to provide for the development of Delhi according to plan and for matters companynected therewith or ancillary thereto.
In the public numberice, it was categorically stated that the registrants of the said scheme who had number applied for an allotment in that release would number be eligible to apply again for allotment.
The Central Government, having regard to Section 41 read with Section 56 2 r of the Act, companyld direct allotment of flats from out of turn quota keeping in view the cases of the appellants who were three in number, as falling in the category of hard cases.
Although the appellants were number successful in their attempt to obtain any remedy on the judicial side, they purported to approach the Ministry of Urban Affairs in 1997.
During pendency of the said application, they approached the Finance Member and Chairman of the respondent to place their case before the out of companyrt settlement companymittee.
in June, 1987, November, 1987, March, 1989, July, 1990, January, 1991, January, 1993.
A review application filed thereagainst also stand dismissed.
Indisputably, despite the fact that the appellants were number successful in obtaining the flats by reason of draw of lots and despite the fact that they did number respond to the numberice issued by the respondent, those cases had number been companysidered in the year 1994.
Letters Patent Appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellants being LPA No.
They having failed to deposit the amount as far back in 1994 cannot number be permitted to claim an equitable right despite their unsuccessful attempt before the Forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985.
They made certain representations.
Appellants were number successful therein and, thus, were unable to get flats in locality of their choice.
Allegedly, the Joint Secretary DL by reason of a letter dated 24.08.2000 addressed to the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority directed as under I am directed to refer to D.O. letter No.
On what ground, we do number know, flats were allotted in their favour.
The Brochure issued for enforcing the said Scheme is a self contained document.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
However, with a view to give a chance to those who were number successful in the lots on the earlier occasions, a public numberice was issued in some newspapers on 8.12.1993 for release of about 3000 flats which included some built and ready built ones situated in Kondli Gharoli.
1322 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
They asked their names to be included in the VI and VI A Self Financing Schemes which were issued later on.
A companyplaint was filed by the appellants before the Consumer Disputes Redressal District Forum II on or about 16.01.1995 inter alia for a direction upon the respondent herein that their registration should number be cancelled and they should be companysidered in future draw of lots till they companyld be allotted flats in the locality of their choice.
The Scheme was closed.
After discussion, it was agreed that instead of a general scheme, VC, DDA would companyer the pending petitioners, especially, the hard cases under the OTA quota.
Despite the same allegedly they had been allotted Category III flats.
Respondent is an authority created under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 for short the Act .
5th SFS onwards/2000/SFS, dated the 15th May, 2000 from Shri Arvind Kumar, the then Commissioner Housing , on the subject numbered above, and to state that the matter pertaining to giving one more opportunity to the left out registrants of 5th and subsequent Self Financing Schemes was discussed in the Chamber of UDM with VC, DDA some time back.
The Central Government in a situation of this nature was entitled to formulate a Scheme for the left out registrants.
