JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
Page 0598
1. Two appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent arise out of a common judgment and order dated 7th November, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing WP (C) No. 15187/2004, WP (C) No. 16196/2004 and WP (C) No. 19018/2004. Appeals have been filed only in respect of the decision rendered in WP (C) No. 15187/2004 (M/s Sethi Auto Service Station) and WP (C) No. 16196/2004 (M/s Anand Service Station).
2. Since both the appeals raise common questions of law, they have been heard together.
3. The Appellants were allotted a petrol pump in Mahipalpur near NH-8 in 1994. The Airport Authority of India made the allotment of land while Indian Oil Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. respectively allotted the petrol pumps.
4. According to the Appellants a proposal was mooted in 1999 for construction of an eight-lane highway between Delhi and Gurgaon, which included the construction of a flyover and a grid separator at Mahipalpur crossing.
5. As a result of the construction, the operation of the petrol pumps had become unviable and, therefore, the Appellants approached the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of an alternative site to set up their petrol pumps. The claim made by the Appellants was on the basis of a policy framed by the DDA on 14th October, 1999 for “re-sitement”.
6. Procedurally, the request of the Appellants for relocation was initially taken up by the State Level Coordinator (Oil Industry), who recommended relocation to the DDA by a letter dated 10th May, 2002 in which it was stated as follows:-
In view of this, the retail outlets Anand S/Stn and Sethi Auto S/Stn will become totally unviable with this Grid Separator and needs to be resited immediately.
In view of the above, it is recommended and request to allot suitable sites for resiting (relocating) the subject two retail outlets.
7. The issue of relocation was also considered by the Technical Committee of the DDA on 28th October, 2002 in which the following recommendation was made:-
2 (iv) Two No. petrol pumps affected due to the construction of Mahipalpur fly over and others are one of the essential highway facilities NHAI may integrate the petrol pumps with the NH-8 proposal. Any relocation/resitement, if required, be done.
8. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the Screening Committee of the DDA on 21st November, 2003 when the proposal for relocation was disapproved and the minutes recorded as follows:-
The scheme was presented by Dir. (Plg) AP.1. The proposal of the said two sites was not approved and the Commissioner (Plg.) was directed to enquire and submit a report to VC, DDA why these two petrol pump sites were not Page 0599earlier sent to Commissioner (LD) for auction, when the petrol pump sites were asked to be sent to Commissioner (LD) for auction.
9. It appears that the view expressed by the Screening Committee on 21st November, 2003 was considered by the Vice Chairman of the DDA and he also rejected the proposal for relocation.
10. The above facts are not disputed but in addition thereto, it is relevant to note that the policy of the DDA formulated on 14th October, 1999 was revised by another policy announced on 20th June, 2003 and the decision of the learned Single Judge is based on the latter policy.
11. The learned Single Judge in his rather erudite judgment dealt with the issues raised by the Appellants under three heads. The first issue was whether the DDA had decided to allow relocation of the two petrol pumps. The learned Single Judge answered this in the negative and we agree with him.
12. It is true that the State Level Coordinator (Oil Industry) had recommended relocation of the petrol pumps by a letter dated 10th May, 2002 and this view was also accepted by the Technical Committee of the DDA on 28th October, 2002. However, the fact of the matter is that these were not the final authorities to take a decision. The matter had also to be considered by the Screening Committee of the DDA as well as by the Vice Chairman of the DDA. It is well settled that in a hierarchy, merely because some favorable recommendations are made at some level of the decision making process, that will not bind the superior or higher authority. The nothings and views expressed on the files of a case are for the benefit of the final decision-making authority and it is only after taking into consideration all points of view that he takes a decision to agree with one set of views or the other. The learned Single Judge in this context has referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court including Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab 1962 Supp (3) SCR 713, State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar , Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra , Bhadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia . In view of the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Appellants cannot depend entirely upon the favorable views expressed by the State Level Coordinator (Oil Industry) as well as by the Technical Committee of the DDA.
13. In these cases, there is no doubt that the Screening Committee of the DDA as well as the Vice Chairman of the DDA were the final decision-making authorities, particularly the Vice Chairman. Both these authorities did not accept the proposal given by the State Level Coordinator (Oil Industry) or by the Technical Committee of the DDA. The Screening Committee as well as the Vice Chairman were entitled to take a different view, which they did. We agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that no final decision Page 0600was taken by the DDA to allow relocation of the petrol pumps of the Appellants. On the contrary, the final decision was to reject the request for relocation.
14. The second issue considered by the learned Single Judge was whether the Appellants had a legitimate expectation that they would be allotted alternative sites. This issue was not addressed before us, but in any case, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the Appellants neither had an accrued or a vested right for allotment of an alternative site and in the absence of any right which could even remotely be set to be enforceable, the question of substantive legitimate expectation would not arise.
15. The third issue, which was really the issue canvassed before us, was whether the Appellants were entitled to the benefit of the 1999 policy since the recommendations by the State Level Coordinator (Oil Industry) and the Technical Committee of the DDA had been made in their favor in terms of that policy and whether the DDA had deliberately delayed a final decision on their representation until the 2003 policy came into force, thereby defeating their rights.
16. There is considerable material difference between the 1999 policy and the 2003 policy. In terms of the proposed guidelines of the 1999 policy, one of the eligibility criteria reads as follows:-
iv) The resitement sought due to reduction in sale on account of any planned scheme/project may be entertained by DDA, provided it is referred by an Oil Company/Ministry mentioning that the sale level is below the prescribed limit and petrol pump is not feasible in its existing location.
17. The above criterion indicates that if there was a reduction in sale, relocation could be considered provided the oil company recommended relocation. So far as the present cases are concerned there is no dispute about the fact that because of the flyover and grid separator there would be a reduction of sale in so far as the Appellants are concerned and that their cases for relocation were recommended by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Consequently under the 1999 guidelines, the Appellants may have had a good case for being allotted an alternative site.
18. However, under the 2003 policy relocation was permissible only if a planned project or a scheme (such as a flyover or a grid separator in the present case) directly necessitated the closing down of the petrol pump. This is mentioned in clause III of the 2003 policy, which is as follows:-
III Other important features
A. Resitement:
1) Resitement will be made only when the existing petrol pump/gas godown site is utilized for a planned project/scheme which directly necessitates the closing down of the petrol pump/gas godown site. No resitement will be made on any other grounds. As the petrol pumps will be disposed on annual license fee basis rather than on upfront payment, if an allottee does not find the business lucrative due to certain other reasons, he can always close to surrender the site.
Page 0591
2 & 3) xx xx xx
19. The admitted position is that the Appellants would suffer a reduction in sale but would not be required to close down. In fact in the writ petition filed by M/s Sethi Auto Service Station it has been mentioned in paragraph 6 that their sales would be seriously affected and the petrol pumps would be made commercially unviable, but there is no averment that it would be necessary for the petrol pump to close down. This is what is stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition:
6. The petitioner’s petrol pumps had been catering to the needs of Mahipalpur, Rangpuri and the highway fast moving traffic. However with the construction of the proposed fly over bridge/grid separator as part of the Express Way, the business of these petrol pumps of Petitioners was bound to be seriously affected and made commercially unviable, as almost the entire traffic passing through the junctions would go over the Fly Over and would not have access to the petitioner’s petrol pumps.
20. There is no allegation made before us that the DDA had deliberately delayed consideration of the case of the Appellants for any mala fide reasons. It is just that the bureaucratic procedures took their own time for completion and the Appellants were over taken by events.
21. In any case, we find that even under the 1999 policy there was no obligation cast upon the DDA to relocate the petrol pumps. What the 1999 policy laid down was only a criterion for relocation and not a mandate. We, therefore, agree with the learned Single Judge that the Appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the 1999 policy nor did the DDA deliberately delay consideration of their case.
22. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeals. We uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeals with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.