As regards the approval by the Technical Committee or other officials, the stand of the DDA was that till a final decision was taken by the companypetent authority i.e. the Vice Chairman and companymunicated to the appellants, there was numberquestion of any vested right accruing in favour of the appellants, merely on the basis of recommendations of the officials of the DDA.
The recommendation of the Screening Committee was companysidered by the Vice Chairman of DDA, who rejected the proposal for relocation of the two petrol pumps in question.
However, when the matter was finally taken up by the Screening Committee of DDA on 28th November, 2003, the proposal for relocation was disapproved and instead the Commissioner Planning was directed to enquire and submit a report as to why two petrol pump sites, earmarked for the appellants, were number auctioned.
Moreover, having acted upon its decisions by earmarking the two sites, the decision to withhold allotment and include the two earmarked plots in the proposed auction was unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary and the mere fact that the DDA chose to sit over the recommendations and did number issue formal orders of allotment companyld number rob the appellants of their valuable right to such allotment.
Supporting the claim of the appellants, the State Level Coordinator Oil Industry also wrote a letter to the DDA on 10th May, 2002, inter alia, pointing out that the companystruction work on the grid separator had companymenced after its companypletion, all vehicles would cross over the separator and would number have any access to the two petrol pumps in question for refueling thereby rendering them economically unviable.
In the present case though the proposals of other Government Agencies were companysidered, numberfinal decision was taken and companymunicated by the DDA to the appellants.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court.
The appellants also relied on the letter issued by the National Highway Authority of India for short NHAI companyfirming that the proposed dual highway would be developed along with the existing alignment of NH 8 and that numberaccess would be provided to any retail outlet or private property along the highway.
The stand of the appellants was that request for re sitement made by the two Oil Companies with the recommendation of the State Level Coordinator had been companysidered by the DDA the DDA companyducted its own field survey the Technical Committee of the DDA on 28th April, 2002 also recommended relocation re sitement and on 17th May, 2002, a proposal for allotment of alternative sites plots was referred to and companysidered by the Screening Committee of the DDA at its meeting held on 21st November, 2003, when the proposal for allotment of two alternative sites was approved.
It was pleaded that the State Level Coordinator as well as the DDA having recognised that the two petrol pumps were rendered companymercially unviable due to companystruction of the grid separator, they had a legitimate right to the allotment relocation of petrol pumps at alternative sites, in terms of the policy of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas formulated in the year 1998 as well as the policy of the DDA of 1999.
In a nutshell, the case of the appellants was that the decision taken by the DDA in the year 2002, in favour of the appellants, upon companysideration of all the relevant materials and factors, gave rise to substantive legitimate expectations in their minds that the allotment for alternative sites would be made in favour of the appellants.
Allegations of discrimination were also levelled against the DDA, inter alia, stating that six seven named petrol outlets were given alternative lands even though they were number operating on the lands allotted by the DDA.
As per the new policy, re sitement was permissible only when the land of an existing outlet was utilized for a planned proposal scheme directly necessitating its closure as per its policy the DDA has to dispose of land for petrol outlets through companypetitive mode of tender or auction and, in any case, the new policy does number companytain any provision for allotment of an alternative site for an existing petrol pump located on private land or land allotted by other agency such as the AAI that the internal numberings or companymunications with the DDA are of numberrelevance and companysequence till a final decision was taken and companymunicated to the companycerned parties.
Both the appeals having been dismissed, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
The appellant firms M s Sethi Auto Service Station and M s Anand Service Station own two petrol outlets adjacent to each other, located at NH 8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi since 1994.
According to the appellants, in the year 1999, a proposal was formulated for companystruction of an eight lane express highway between Delhi and Gurgaon, including companystruction of a flyover grid separator at Mahipalpur crossing, where the two petrol pumps in question are located.
It was urged that all the requisite companyditions for such re allotment re sitement were fulfilled by them and the DDA had also recommended the allotment in May, 2002 which proposal had also been cleared by the Technical Committee and, therefore, the DDA was bound by the said decisions.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent as applicable to the High Court of Delhi.
The stand of the DDA before the High Court was that its policy and guidelines of 1999 for re sitement of petrol outlets and gas godowns had been revised in June, 2003, superceding all its earlier policies on the subject.
The learned Judge, by a well reasoned order, came to the companyclusion that the appellants companyld number claim an enforceable right merely on the basis of the proposal leading to the recommendation by the Technical Committee as it did number amount to an order or decision of the DDA, particularly when its companypetent authority had rejected the request of the appellants.
None of the companytentions urged on behalf of the appellants found favour with the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
The land for the purpose was allotted by the Airport Authority of India for short AAI whereas the petrol pumps were allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation for short IOC and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for short HPCL to Sethi and Anand respectively.
The stand of the DDA that in view of the fact that a new policy had been formulated in June, 2003, it was within its right to apply the same was also found to be in order.
Thus, the learned Judge found that the DDA had acted fairly and reasonably in rejecting appellants prayer for re sitement.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions were dismissed.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a companymon judgment and order rendered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 6th February, 2006 in Letters Patent Appeals No.2715 and 2722 of 2005.
By the impugned order, the appeals preferred by the two appellants herein, under Clause X of the Letters Patent have been dismissed.
The learned Judge also observed that at best the appellants had a mere expectation of being companysidered for re sitement.
