Vijender Singh v. U.O.I & Ors

ORDER

12.07.2010 In terms of the common judgment rendered today in Writ Petition (Civil) 9478/2007 titled "Wing commander M.P. Set/il (Retd.) & Ors v. Union of India & Another" along with eight connected writ petitions, this writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Application also stands dismiss#ed. A copy of the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 9478 of 2007 be placed forthwith on the file. S. MURALIDHAR, J JULY 12, 2010 rk / Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. h [N TilE 1.I1GJI COURT OF DELI AT NEW DImil I • Reserved on: May 31, 2010 Dcciioii on July 1 ' 0 JO WRIT IE'IiT1ON (CIVIL) 9478/2007& CM AJII. 17858/07 WING COMMANDER M.P. SUIL -il (.RF1'D.) & ORS .... Petitioncis - . ... Through: Mr, Rakcsh 1ildu with Mr. Prakash (]autdrn, Advocate vc1-sus UN ION OF INDIA. & ANR . l..esporidents Through: Ms. Jyoh Smgh, Advocate • H WRIT PETITION (CIVIJ ) 9525/2007 & CM A I'PI 17931/07 • . . . . N .X. N.K. KRIST1AN KUMAR & ORS . PeHioners 1'hrough: (7 oJ. K. l)iganibar Singh. Advocale versus •

¶1IN ION OF INI)IA & ANR Respondents Ilirougli: Ms .Jyot Singh, Advocate WRIT PETITiON 9546I007 & CM APPI I 7954/07 (CiVil) CI IANDRO DEV1 . .... .Petitioner 'Ilirough: Col. K. Digarnbar S ugh, i\dvocatc versus UN1ON OF 1NI.)IA & ANR Respondents Through: Ms. Jyoti Sing. h, Advocale Wifl'I' PE'FITION (('IVIL) 9568/2007 & CM APPI 17981/07 ) X. .1 IONY. CAP'I' .BAI 131R SINGI I II )IAN .... Pen loner Through: Col. K. Digambar Singh, Advocate . vel-sus N ION OF INDIA & ANR .... Respondents 'I'hrough : Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate WRit' PETFI'ION (('IVIL) 6447/2008 & CM AI'Pl. 12315/08 .JAODISI I PRASAI) .... PetOioner Ihrougli: ('ol. K. Eiganibar Singli, Advocate WI' (C) Nos. 9478107, 0525107, 9546107. 9568107, 6447/08, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 Page .1 of 35 versus • UNION OF INDiA & ANR .... Respondents Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate WRIT P ETiTION (CiVil ) 6494/2008 & CM AP II I 2381/08 VII LN1)FR SINGFI . .... Petitioner ihough: Ccl. K. Diglambar Singh, Advocate VCrS LIS UNION 01 INI )IA & AN ft RLpondLnt' • . . . . . flirough: Ms .Jyoti Singh, Advocate WRIT P1C1'I'IiON (CIVIL) 6761/2008 & CM AI'PL, 1 3ffl)5108 LX. HONY. SU13 MA] RAM PAL & ANR .... Petitioners • . lhrough: Mr. Rakesh Tilcki with Mr. Prakash Gautam, Advocate versus . . UN 1QN OF INDIA & ANR .... Respondents ihrough: Ms. Mancesha Dhir wit.11 Ms. Prccti I )ahaI and Mr. K.P.S. Koh i, Advocate . '0 WRI'F PETITION (CIVIL) 7366/2009 & CM AI'PL 3210/09 DLVAYANI'I . .... Petitioner [hi-ough: Col. K. Diganibar Smgh, Advoi:atc versus UN ION OF iNDIA & ANT . . .. Respondents Through: Ms. .Iyoii Singh, Advocate . . And WRIT PETITION (CI\'IL) 14034/2009 & CM AIPL 16083/09 . . I .X. SFP VIREN1)ER SINCI I .... Petitioner 'I'hroughi: Col. K. J)iganihar Singh, Advocate versus , 0•, UNiON OF iN DI A & AN R R espondents Thioiigh : Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate C(I)RAM: JUSTICE S. MURAL1D [JAR . WI' (C), Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, . 6447/08, 6494/08, 6761108, 7366/09& 14034/09 Pogo 2 of 3 I. Whether r{e1joi -tei-s of local papers may he allowed to see the jucignient? Nd To be referred to the Reportei - or not? Ycs Whether the judgment should be i -eported Yes in Digest? JUDGEMENT The non-renewal of the liccnccs in respect of the shops located .1 the Shopping complex under the control of the lvi Lnistry of I )elè nec, t Jioou of india (Respondent No. 1) in lhvoor o the 1 e1itioflcrs pursuant to it policy decision made effective from 30 April 2007, is the SLIbjCC1 mattel of the challenge in this hatch of writ petitions. - -. Backgroii;id/uicEs •

¶2The Petitioners belong to categories of ex-serviceirien (and their ldiiii ly members) who died either in war and/or while being in scrvicc and/or • h Nci battle disch Ii Ioi iving so ed c 1SL1 iltic S and/or ii ge om the iii ned ceS • . and/or those arniccl personnel who retire after rendering (mill ser\'icc. ilic case of I he Petitioners is that among various measures adopted by the • I )ireclorate General of, Rcsettlenient (')CR') was the allocation of the shops . 1p the areas manned and managed by the Station Commander in various localities in Delhi such ais S.P. Marg, .1 )elhi Canit., Arjon Viliar, • Dhaii Ia iKuan, Sliankar Vihar etc. It is stated that witti a view to streamline the allot imients wade of time •. - abme shops in the shopping complexes, the Rcspondciils have been issuing - guideliies from tinie to time known as Standing Operating Procedure ('SOP'). In terms of Clause 6 of the SOP issued on 1011 August 2001, as WP (C) No.. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, . 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 ('age 3 of 35 • .. .. •: •: and whep any ol the shops lull vacant, the Station Commander at Station I ieadqiiarters was expected to give wide publicity through the )C R in local • newspaperS. The allotment of shops was to he done on yearly basis. Clause 11 1 the SOP dated 1 0''' August 200 1 providcd for priorities in the al lotnicni of shops. Various parameters have been laid down ior a I loin ciii. On meeting such parameters a person was given a licence br a penmi of I I . months subjcct to renewal. Clause 17 o:f the SOP dated 10" A u,usl 2001 reads as under:

¶17Renewal of licence deed: kcncwal of, licence dccii will he done on the recommendation of i -csidcntial associations, which will he obtained three months in advance from the dale of expiry of licence deed by DI)A & QMG, Station. HQ l.?elhi Canti. It the rcconimendations are in lhvour of at lottce, I hen the . . . Station CoiTimaiidei may renew the licence ileed br the subsequent year. H owever, the 11 eence deed i nay he terminated at any time by the Station Coiniiiander at his discretion." . 'I. According to the Petitioners, tilt the policy of 1 3' April 2007 which is challenged in this petition was announced, as a. matter of pmcticc: the licences were being renewiid from time to time. Many of the Petitioners hpye beep pccupying the shops in their possession br over nie years. In lbct, the Petitioners including Wing Commander M . P.. Setln and two others in Arj Liii Vihar have been iii occupation of their respective shops br over 21 years. It is stated that in terms of Clausc 17 of the SOP only where the lesidepts' ASSocial!on did not favour any particLilan allottce of a shop, was the renewal withheld, in lerniS of Clause '25 of the S(.).P a (letai.illing illoilec W1' (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, • 6447/08, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 • I'agi' 4 of 3S (2 has to he relèrred to the Estate 0 ilicer for the p01-110ses ot in nation ot evtctifl proceedings under the Public Premises (Fviction and Unauthorized Occupa!its) Acb 1971 ('PP'Act'). it is slated that 1982 omA'ards many ol the Petitioners wel c allotted their respective shops and licenec deeds were also exceuted. The licence deeds wcç lisf ç tended in the year 2000 and wci'e to expire in the latter pail of 2007 . II is stated that the Petitioners had legitimate expectation that the licence deeds may, indeed be renewed. I lowcvcr, on 131 April 2007 the new policy e I lective from 30 tii April 2007 was issued. Clause 18 oF the new policy reads as under: • . "18. Renewal of licence deed: Renewal of licence (Iced will be none on the recommendation of resident al associations, which will be obtained three months m advance from the date ph expiry or licepec deed by A QM G Slat ion Head Quarter, l)el hi Cantl . Il' the reconimendat i oiis are in ftivour of al lottee, then the Station Coiiimander may renew the licence (iced for the subsequent year. i.lowevcr, the licence rIced may be terminated at any time by the - Station Commander at iìis discretion. No extension bc'yond live years will he given under anycircUmstancc. the same person can apply aFter a gap of three years of clear break (not i-unning in any Army('olony oh NCR)." • ., . ,. In Icons of . the above (..lause 1,8, the niglit to get the licenecs renewed ininiediately on the expiry of live years has been withdrawn. 'the alloltees are expectd to apply again a Rem a iii niinum hi'eak ol three years. In terms ill/P (C) NOS. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, - . . 6447/08, 6494/08, 6761/08, 736/09 & 14034/09 . !'aye S of 35 • ol' the rvisec.1 policy, the Respondents issued letters to the Petitioners • declining renewal ol licenees. The copies of letters reqoiring the Petitionei-s • to \'acalc the shops under fheir occupation have been enclosed with the • '! petitiOn. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 9 I Wing Commander M . P. SelIn (Rei(.), Is .JW() A.S. (ihadha, i'x. (INR Narender I )ev, Hx. Naik tinni K rislivan.-'l'P. • . Ix. Sepoy Dharam Chand, Smi. Chandro I )evi, Fx. Suhedar R K. Piiwir, • . •' Smi. Vimla Dcvi in W.P. (C) 9478 of 2007; Petitioher Nos. I, 2, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 17 lEx. N.K. Iishan Kumar, U. (Reid.) Coloncl Rameshwar, Mrs, Vcena Muldiyar, Smt. Narangi Dcvi, l'ix. Sigrnn lshwai' Singh, I lony. Capt. (Reid.) I )hanraj Sharia, Mrs. Shakuntla I )cvi and Sriii, I .ilawai i in W.P. (C) 9525 of' 2007; Smt. Cliandro Dcvi, wi fe ol late N. K. I Ioslnyar Singh, the Petitioner in W.P. (C) 9546 of 2007; lix. I buy. ('ip1. l3alhi r • Singh, the ['etilioner in WI'. (C) 9568 ol 2007 were served vacation notices dated 2311 November 2007 requiring the said Petitioners to vacate the shops in their possession within one month. 1 bo\.vever, the Court is ir brined by • • the Respondents that Chandro Dcvi, Petitioner No. 7 ni W. P. (C) 9478 .o I' • '2007 fins a.tready vpcaled the shop III her possession. . Shnbltawati Dcvi, the wifb of , hx. I Ion1' Captain Sitpa! Yada\.', Pciitioi'icr • No, 11 in W. P. (C) 9478 of 2007 made a represcnlaliori to the Respondents requesting them to transfer the licence to the shop allotted to 11CY deceased husband to her. On 3111 October 2007, the Respondents in reply to iii is • • . . representation dated 1711 August 2007 stated that there was no poi icy In WI' (C) Nob. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, , • 6447108,6494108,6761108,7366109&1403410.9

• I'aqe6aj3.5

¶4trans Icr the allotted shop from the original a! IOttc to the spouse in case ol the lormer's (leatli. The licence for the shop allotted to her (leceased • husband. had already expired on 911 August 2007. I Iowe\er, on compassionate grounds she was al owed to continue liii 3 1 ' Decernbcr • .• . • 2007. This stand was reiterated by the Respondents by a conimun ical ion . cltcd 3111 November 2007 in reply to the Petitioner's reprcscntat ion (Ilited • I 711 N OVCITibcr 2007. 6,

¶10Shri Magan I .al, Petitioner No. 10 in W. P. (C) 94$', or 2007 whose licence expired on 27111 October 2007 and Shri Ilavman Singh, Petitioner NO. 18 in W,P. (C) 9525 of 2007 whosC licence expirxl on 25 November 2007 received vacation notices dated 2711 November 2007 requiring them io vacate the shops in their respective possession within one mqnth. Shri M . P. Singh, Pe(itioner No. 3 in W.P. (C) 9478 or 2007 received a simI tar flotiec on 2811 November 2007 aler his licence expired on 27" Noven her 2007. 1' he licence or Shri Jagdish Prasad, the Petitioner in W. P. (Civil) 641 7 ol 2008 expired on 1 4' August 2007. I Ic was served a vacation 11011cc by the Respondents on 21 °. May 2008 asking him to vaate

1.11C shop iii his possession by 25 June 2008. Similarly, the licence ol'Slil - I Virender Smg!'i, the Petitioner in W.1. (C) 6494 of 2008 expired on 19" January 2008. lIe was served a vacation notice dated 3i May 200$ asking him to vacate the shop ri his possession by 25'' June 2008. I however, the Respondents in lrmed the Court that the Petitioner ifI W. l C) 6494 or 200$ has already vacated the shop. The licencç oF Shri Ranipal, Petitioner No. I in \'V. P. (C) 6761 of" 200$ expired on 20h11 April 2008 and oF Shiri K ainesh\var Pi'asad WI' (C) No. 9478107, 9525/07, 9546107, 9568107, ' 6,447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 ' Singh, Petitlotier No. 2 in W.P. (C) 676] of 2008 on 28 " February 2008. • 'they were se1vd yacatiop notices on 8" May and 24" April 2008, i LSC( tivcly i cquu mg them to vacate the shops in then possession by I 61 September 2008, Smt. Devyanti Dcvi, the Pctitioner in W.P. (C) 7366 of 2008 was issued a vacation notice on i January 2009 when her licence had expired on 6hu1 July 2008. She was required to vacate the shop by 71 lCl .)rLiii'y 99 Ii The licence of Shri Virender Singh, the Petitioner in WI'. (C') I 403'h ol 2099 expired on 31 ' Januai' 2007. I l.owcvcr, by a letter dated 2 I • December 2006 the Respondents had cancelled his licence under para 15 oh' the licence deed due to subletting of the sho. By a letter dated 30" November 2007 he was asked to vacate the shop within 30 days. • Consequently, the Respondents served an eviction notice dated 1$" August . . 2008 on the Petitioner. . • .

¶121.1. Col. (Rei(t) B.M. K.apoor, Petitioner No.4 in W.P. (C) 9525 of 2007 was serve.l a vacation notice on 1911 December 2007 while his licence had Ii, , . . . -, expired on 7 .luly 2007. Similarly, Lt. CoT: (Reid.) 1)1K. 1 )ebnath, Petitioner No. I in W.P. (C) 9525 of 2007 was served a vacation notice dated 14" August 2007 when his licence expired on 24" March 2008. Pcti(iner Nos. 3, 6, 7, II, 13 and 1 6 in W.P. (C) 9525 oF 2007 have also been served with similar \'aeation notices, which are in ipugned, a lIe, expi ry of their licences. • • WP (C) No,. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108,7366109 & 14034109 l'age 8 of 35 The Pelitk'ners' Case

¶3II is submitted by the Petitioners that the very purpose of )G R allocating shops in favour of the Petitioners was to enable them to have sonic reasonable means of subsistence. It is stated that continued al lotnient was a role and non-renewal an exception. Continued allotment • II • automatically followed if there were no negative reports loin tile residents asoeia1 ionS. It is stated that primarily the Petitioners are sd Ii rig ciocery • items, eatables, vegetables, limited items of elccoical goods eic. iii their shops I hsc are m idc available to the icsidcnts of the localities \s h it cle1rcc shopptng complexes are located, at reasonable rales Ihe basic idea is to make available things of day-to-day use to the residents of these areas near thnir door steps. The very purpose of allocating these shops to various allottees was to enable the servicemen and their fhmily members to earn a • decept livtng. • I It is stated that the new policy macic c libel ye from 3011 April 2007 • gives a complete go-by to this philosophy. II introduced a break in the continuity of their rehabilitation process with the Raspondents ldsiflsinit the Petitioners to vacate the shops.

¶15At the initial date of' hearing i.e. on 20111 December 2007, this Court passed the following order: • . "Issue not:ice. Ms. •lyoti Singli, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondents. Counter alMdav it shall be H led withni two weeks. Rejoinder, II any, may be filed willnii two weeks thei'eaiter. W1' (C) Nüs. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, • 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 • I'age .9 of 3S I 1st 011 8a LIII udi y 2OO CM APP1. 17830/2007

(stay) I have eonsidei-ed the materials on record. The applicants' grievance is that they were allotted the premises by the Respondents as a measure of rehabilitation, on account ol their being ex-serviceman or being war widows. It is contended that sudden change of po1 icy has gravely and irreparably affected them. I ,eared counsel fbi the Petitioners relicd upon the documents: [hey suggest that Respondents took a conscious decision tl.iai tIiL'altotiiIciit in case of, rehabilitation was understood as not to the subject of later cancellation. however, learned counsel for the Respondents has disputed the applicability of the documents. According to her, the letter pert2iine(1 to allotment of premiscs in Regimental Areas. It is not disputed that the allotment of these spaces were given as a measure of rehabilitation to the Pelitioners. The obtective of the new Sclicnie, it is • empbased, is to ensure availability of these premises to as many heneflciaries as possihie, having regard to the limited resources available with tlielbrce. It is contended that a large number of applications were filed and are pending consideration. While the discretion of public authority to allot the p!'emises with in its pOssessioil, control and ownersh p aid • ••, thd parameters 1br such treatment can never he denied yet the question here appears to he one of bahuicing competitive disadvantages, as it were. The debate here is • •, . whether having allotted the premises, as a nicasii.re ol rehabilitation, the Respondents can, after some tine reverse that process and insist that siieli allottecs who admittedly were eligible Ibr the benefit shoLild return the p1-emises and wait: for three more years to claim allotment br the same and other such spaces. I am of the opi lion that while the Respondents' power to tiaiyie'a policy ' WP (C) No.c. 9478107. 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, • 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 • J'oq' .10 of 35 cannot be questioned yet the considerations which the authority has to kee1 in this reiard, ic. the level of prosperity (Ii' income attained by the allot tees who wci'e given premises earlier, the sufficiency, of such income to make them tide order the difficult sitLiation and other objective lactors can certainly be gone into undei' Ai -ticle 226 of thc Constitution. -. In view of the above, the Respondents are licichy restrained iroiii taking any steps to disposscss tile Petitioner during t!.ie pendency of fh is writ petit iiiii. Case of '(lie 1?espondents

¶16In the counter affidavit hiled in W. P. (C) 95t16 of 2007, which is morc or less sinu lar to the counter affidavit filed in other petit ions, the Respondents have cafegorically stated that "the doiTnniint purposc of these shopping complex/centres is the welfare of the scrvicemcn and their l'amifles i'csic.ling in the vicinity thereof and NOT resettlei nent ol a war wio\v, a widow, battle casualty and ex-sei'viccnien wli cli is only anci I lai'y i'athei' than allot shop to outsiders. It may be farther reemphnsised that the ' shops in the shopping complexcs/slopping centres are il lotted on • ' contractual basis on the normal i'ental basis and no promise ins hcen held out to the allottees that thiir licence will be necessarily rcncwed/cxtcndcd • 1 7 Ihe u1tionale for changing the policy as set out in the SOP dated I UI • August 2001 is attributed to the i'equets made by a Iarqc number of war widows, widows, battle casualties and ex-scr\'iceinen approaching the Respoi idents for allotment of' shops in shopping ' eoi npl ecs/shopping centics It is tatcd that in a pciiod of five rilonflis, 47 iw11 appliieation • ' - - W (ç) Nps. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, ' 6447/08, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 • i'aqi 11 ()13' were received but lone Of them could he enierlained sncc the cx isti iillottces Were continuing SinCe Inception iil(ilhe lli.iiilher oI 5110115 avai able was limited. ftc m-easons for the change in the policy as introduced in the SOP d Ocd 13 Api ii 2007 ai c stated to bc thc lol lowing

i) assisting thosc faniilius registered in the w olin c IN Mr allonacrit of shops.

(h) illegal sub-lettuig of shops by the existing a lottees whose Itcences have been kept renewed for a long duration.

(e), the l3ct that: there is no il:icreasc in Ole number of slloppni; complexes even while the demand ibr allotment keeps increasing.

(d) Since the allotment of shops IS a welfare measure, it is necessary to i otate the allocation SO that ajalger number of e\-SLI \ 0 in ii are

S

¶18The Respondents claim that the changed pohcy was made known to all I icencees including tile Petitioners in June 2007 iii the addi I innal a liidav ii tiled on 22"' 1"ehroary 2010, tIle Respondents have drawn a distinction IletWeell clilit shops (Regimental Shops) and 5110115 in sliolpno cenlros/complexes which are located in the "main illumed c(mplex". i'iieloscd with the affidavit is a copy of the 'Scales of J\ccnmiTiodation 1 9 8 :3 ('SOA 1983'). Regimental shops are autllorixed by pam 141 ot' the S()A 1983 and provide for trades such as taiioi:, boot maker (i'13R), cycle repair and grocer (unit baniya and wet cailteeli). 'these unit shops "arc oleant purely for troops and their banlilies as a wel lire activity and are located in uilil lines wherein civilian populatloil has Ijillited or no access." WI' (C) Nos. 9478/07, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447/08, 6498108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 I'aqe 12 oJ35 Flic additional aIli(iavIl proceeds to state that shops in slioppilig centres/complexes as described in para 3.42. 1 of SOA 1983 and arc located at military stations "where no civil shopping complex exists within a reasonablc distance from the main married complex. The trades can he selected out of catcgorics like aerated water, barber, book and stationary, car a n d scooter repair, cloth, chemist and druggist, dry cleaner; cycle, gas. barn iture, restaurpnt, milk dairy, bakery. vcgctah Ic and Irui ts and 1)1 her trades which meet the requirements of' the troops and their farnil es'' It is stated that these shops have a clientele of the (iepeiident civi han population also. The Respondents point out that t;hei -c are two,sub-categoncs of shops in shopping complexes/centres. One category is covered by p;ira 3.'12. I of • ' SOA 1983 , which are created on debance lad.ls Iron] go\/ernillei it hinds. The other category is shops crea(ed on defence lands using non public funds. On I ill September 2008, the Ministry of' Debance ('Mol)') Government ol India, brought out 'Guidel nies for running shopping centres/coniplexes and unit shops'. Pai21 8(b) ol the guidelines states that the I )efcrice Shoppiiiiz Centres/Complexes (Maintenance and Administration) Riilcs 2006 ('l )SC Ru Is 006 ') framed by (he Mof) and issued on I 3' lime 2006 would he • applicable to both categories of shopping eoiriplexcs, i.e., those created with go\/ernment funds and those with non public funds.. • 2 I. '[he DSC Rules, 2006 make it clear that they do not apply to Regimental shops created exclusively for military personnel and their WI' (C) Noc. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, • 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 I'aq' .13 of3, Sv lanuhes. Rule 2(c) de1ines a Sholjpiiig complex to mean N composite ava compi is!ng ShopS established on A-I or analogous defence land under the nianacncnt or the Aniiyavy/A ir lorce hut would not include Regimental shops created exclusivcly for military personnel and their • families." Under Rule 3(a) Be existing allottees were allowed to continue till the expiry f their licence period and Such of thosc in unauthorized occupation of Be shops, i.e., where Be period of licence has expired, WoLil(t be given six months time to vacate in terms or Rule 3(c) ho I ing nih cli the • . I state Ofhcer would initiate action to evict them in accordance wi li law. •

¶22Under RLIIc 7 no transfer was permissible except in case of demise or

the a! lotice, in which case it would be transferred to the dependeni/leial heir lhr the residual period of the licence. Under Rule 12, (iO% ol' the shops S in be each shopping complex were to rescrved in the order o priority as war wjdows/wiciows of defence personnel ku led wli Ic on (lutty. disabled soldier . ex-servicemen .

(iv)spouses/wudo\vs of ex-sCrvicemen. The reiiluning 4001 Were to he allotted to the following: i ) Government agencies including public sector undertak i ngs and •

(u) civilians whose spouse or dependent family meiiiber do not o\.vp any shops in the complex/military slation/cantonment. ' . . fill' (c PJos. 94781()7, 9525/07, 9546107, 9568107, . . 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 !'aqo 14 of 3.5 I Any unallotted shops. in the 60°/ quota were to be coiisid red for heitig given to the clvi ian category. 23 tJnçler Rule 13, allotment was to be given Linder licence for a )CiiO(l ol three years. Irirther allotment was to be made "si rid ly under ilic Rules lranicd herein." Under Rule 18, on termination of the licelicc, I the shops werp not vacated, action was to he initiated under the PP Act. findcr Rule 75(i) any platter not covci ed by the DS( 7006 would be dcc tied by M ol) in consultation with the Director General of , flici 1k Ibnec I slatcs and the I leadquartcrs of the Aroiy/Na.vy/Air Force. A further additional afl:idavit was tiled on 27 'h April 2010 clan lying that the shops in Army -lospital, Ral Rifle Centre, l3asc I iospilal , Pal levi Shopping Complex, Taurus CSD Canteen, Army l-Icadquanters and Parade Ground are Regimental shops to he administered by their respective • commandants. These were di fièrent fiorn Station shoppi ig con iplexcs whcr tlie shops allotted to the Petitioners were located. Statistics of the applications rcceivd ibr allotment ol shops and the actual a lotinents made 1mm 2005 till date have been set out to show that only 1 0'Yo of the appl cents have been allotted (tLie to unaVal I Lihil ity of shops. The last affidavit was filed in response to new Uacts stated in the Rejoinder by the e(içmrs on 30 March 009 listing out some oh the shops occupied by civil i ins The Petitioners also flIed an additional rejoinder afhidavi t on I 2 May WP (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525/07, 9546107, 9568107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 Pagi 1, of iS 2010 giving details of shops run by civilians in I )clli I Cantonnient. Photographs of some of One shops were also enclosed. the basic eoiileiitioii of the Petitioners is that if two is a shortio.c of shops Cor allotment for those in the waiting list, then 4hese civilians should be asked to vacate. . . Subni issions of counsel

¶26This Court has heard the submissions ol Mr. Rakesh rikku, Col. K. l)igamh ii Sintth md Mi 101 t R mdii Ic u ned counsel lot the Petit intici s and f4s, )yo0 NOW, learned counsel lbr thc'Rcspondcnts. 27, The central plank of the submissions on behalf of the Petitioners is based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It is submit ted that the S J 'et a Ioi cineutioned notices sent by the Respondents c equi uig die I itionei s to vac ite the shops in question

are ai bitt aiy and uni e isoii ible I lie i cbs il by the Respondents to renew the Petitioners' licence's is stated to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution when tested on the touchstone of the doctrine of legitimate expeCtations.

¶29There is both a procedural and substantive component to the right asserted. 'I'lir; procec.Iure followed here is that each of the Petitioners has . been . given thirty days' advance notice to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises. This is exactly \.v.hat the terms of the licence stipuliite. However, it is contended that the Peti tionei -s were not aware when such licence was issued that there would he no renewal a 11cr hive years and WI' (a) No,. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 thereiore such requiement can only apply to those whose licences were S issued br tile first time alter the new policy dated 1 31 Apn I 2007 cainc into force i.e. 30 April 2007. ill other Words a conditionahty, oF non-renewal Aler live yearS, cannot he applied retroSpecti\/CIy to the Petitioncrs. '111C pi'ocedLire fi lowed by the Respondents i attacked for Its 01 l3inicss. It is submitted by the Petitioners that had they known in advance that such a . five-year rule would be applied then they could have. made, alternative arrangements which according to them reqtl I res some time. 29 I he dod i inc of legitimate expectation is invoked as ice nds I he sLibsi iiitive content of the policy. It is contended di it noNvillistaildillo these werc lice ces fbr a year at a time, as a lTlattCr of practice the licences were be!qg renewed year oiler year by fi)ilowing the pi'e-amended policy as • expressed in Clause 17 of tile SOP dated 10 August 2001. 111 other words, t.hera was a legitinlate expectation even this time around that their 1 ceiices would be i enewed I lie Ii LiSti ition of this iebil im ii C expeCt ition is s iid to altrct Arl:icic 14.

¶30Indepndent of tile ground based on legitimate expectation, it is si.ibmilted that the policy to restrict the initial licence pertod to live yearS. 5 aler the licence has already been renewed in terms of' the existing policy . tile SOP dated 1 0 August 2001, is arbitrary since it I-MiS contrary to the o very object of providing rehabilitation to the ex-serviccnicil and their telati yes who having set up shops, cannot be expected to suddenly wind up their business and fllOVC on. GiVen the restrictions as to the price at which WP (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, . . 6447108, 6494108, 6781108, 7366109 & 14034109 Paqe 1 7 of 35 they can sell their. ComiTiodilles, and the advanced age at which sor care, they cannot he expected to find alternative means ol livelihood. l'hcy .. cannot hc reasonably expected to have made substantial pro Ii Ls iii the short perlç)d thLtl Would help them to sustain themselves alter losing their shops. Also, alternative commei-cial space in the samc area, or any oilier area, would be unaffordable. They would be hack to being reduced to peoury wli cli will (.leftiat ilie object of 1iiei.r being extended a wel lam measure or sustenance. A commei-cial shop has to he iun on borrowings and it takes SoniC time to even break even.. It cannot be abruptly stopped at the end ol Ii\1e years p.ist ~ibonit when it is possible to make some pro its. kemg made Iii wait for three years thereafter bc tbrc re-pplying, oii ly cornpoi rids the uncertainty and is based on a non-understanding Ol how the retail trade in goods \vorkS. It is submitted that the period o.t live ycars, wli cli has beei I arbitrarily fixed, does not subserve the purpose and object of the wel kire measirc and tlierefbre is also irrational. Forcing the PetJtioners to make way C Or other ex -se.rviceriien Who may be waiting in the queue, and then granting them shops in a maximum pciod of five years, rloes not help . . either group oF ex - servicemen. It is submitted that there is no supervening public inlei -est that justi lies such a drastic change in the policy. the answer to the demand for allotment of such shops was perhaps to construct more shops or decrease the existing quota ot' 40% lbr civilians instead ol etirtaihing the licencti period of the shops givci to the ex-serviceinen. • : .1 . . . 3 1 . T he other limb of.tliis argunicnt is that there cannot be a discrimination between 'regimental' shops and shops in a commercial shopping complex as both are aller all as a measure OL\vel lhrc, and are on dctcncc land. W1' (C) Nos. 9478/07, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109

Poqe 18 of 35 H rl :32. Appearing for the Respondents Ms. .Iyoti .Singh, learned counsel P rst sohmtts that the cause of action in the present petition admittedly arises out of and seeks the dontinuation of a contractual agreement and therelorca writ flct;ition under Adicle 226 of the Constitution seeking such relicr not maintainable. Secondly, it is SUbrnittCd that the Petitioners lla\'c an effiçac,iouS remedy under the PP Act. Thirdly, ii is suhmttcd thai the Pctitioners have not come with clean hands and arc trying to mislead the Court that they have been allotted "regimental shops" as against shops in a shopping complev It is pointed out that policy for allotment Was a clear di sti 1 .0. I ion between i egimenta I shops and shops in a shoppi u g (010111 cx While the Cornier may be said to be allotted by w uy ol n.h uhilit iOon thc shops in a shopping complex ate fm the families iesidiug in the vicinity wliçre tlterc are no shops at a reasonable distance. S 31 Ms. Singh emphasizgd that the shops in question were given tinder licence (leeds for terms of 11 months renewable at the discretion of the Stat ion Commander. II is submitted that t:hcre is a growi rig deiTiand ftom the very same categories of ex -servicenuen and their family nicnihcrs, who have become eligible later fOr the allotment ot shops on licence hasis. It is claimed that there isa waiting list of such prospective alloticcs Guveii dim the number ol shops are limited, and in order to ensLirc equal treatnient, the Policy of 30uII April 2007 has been devised. It is pointed out thai there, are other ex-servicemen equally deserving in the queue and cannot possibly be accommodated un less the current occupiers arc asked to vacmit is denied that the nori-reftusal to renew the licences is either arhiirary or niala (ideas WP (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525/07, 9546107, 9568107, 6417108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 l'cqo 1.9 of 35 :L alleged. 11 is lurther denied that any specific unequivocal pioiTiisc was i iidc or assurance given to any of the allottees that the shops would hc allotted for I Ic or in pei1)etuity.

¶34Statistics giving details of allotrrient otShOj)s in the shopping couiplexes have been produced by the Respondents which show that agitinst S7 applications received in the year 2005 only 4 shops were allotted; against 37 applications received in the year 2001 3 shops were al lotted, and 26 applications have already been received lbr 2011 We there has been no allotmcnt since there is no vacancy. 35, With this baekgrm.in of Icts, this Court is cal led upon to exainiiie whether the Jul icy decision announced by the Respondents elièctive 30ih April 2007 is arbitrary or unreasonable and whether the non-renewal of the I icences in lhvour of the Petitioners is arbi.traIy or uni easonahle. Prelini in ary objections as to in aintain ability

¶36The scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to review a policy decision is limitei.l. 'ftc Court nornially does not i nierlere in the matteis of policy except where it directly impacts on (lindamenial rights. 'Ihe right being asserted here is essentially i he right in • he treated hiirly and reasonably. 'lu that cxtcit the judicial review of the impugned actions of the Respondents is indeed perinissil3le, j\lso, the scope o .f the proceedings under the PP Act is limited to showing why the • contiriLied occLipation of the shops is not unantJunIzed and why the occLipier should not be asked to pay penal rates during such period of unauthorized • WI' (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525/07, 9546107, 9568107, 64471011, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 I'aqe 20 of 35 H occupation. A challenge Cannot be raiSed a proceedings under the PP Act to the validity 01 any policy changc or to the impugned orders on the ground that they are arbitrary and violate Article 14. In other words the remedy under the PP Act is neither an effieaeioLLs nor an alternal ye remedy to the p!csent petitions. The preliminary ohections ol the Respondents as to maintainability of these pCtitionS we accordingly oveivuiled. Leçitun ate expectation

¶37'i'urning to the merits, be first issue to be considered is whether the • inipucncd actions arc rcndcrcd arbitrary in that thcy frustrate the legiti nate expectations, both procedural and substantive. o the Petitioners th its rendering t:licin arbitrary and i.iiireasonable under Article 14? Our Suprcuie Coi.irt hts developed the doctrine of 406maty expectation largely on the basis of the decisions of the courts in l7ngland. In Council of Civil Service Unions i'. Minister Jhr Civil Service 1984 All ER 935, it was contended by • the Unions that an employee had a legitimate expectation thi.tt the Minister \\'Oi.iid fQ1ow the existing. practice of consulting the Unions betore their • . membership could he withdrawn. It was explained that time procedural part • of lie expectation was that the appropriate pmcedure, including in • opportunity of being heard would be Fbllowed, be tore time beoc' lit or tlii' • advantai.e was withdrawn. The substantive part was 131 a reprcsentiit mon • was made that the hene lit of a sLihstantivc nature would either be n,ranted or conh inued and not subsirtniial ly varied. It could be a represent ation to the individual or generally to a class of persons. 'l'hc Australian Lligh Court in Attorney General fè,r New South Wales v. Quin 1990 (64) AnsI LIII 327 apprehended that "to strike down the exercise of adnnmustratrvc pmycr Wv (C) Nos. 9478107. 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447/08, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109& 14034109 . /'açje21 oJ35 solely on the ground ol avoiding the disappointment of , legi(imate expectationS 0C an individual would he to set the courts adi -i ft on a icatureless sea of pragmatism. Moi-eover the notion ol a legitunale expect Won (I ilhing shod ot i leg iii ight) is too nebulous 10 foi in u h isis loi nv ilid iting the cxcicise of 1 POWi when its cxci cisc othici wise iccoids with 11W I he house of I oi ds in Rc I indlay 1984 () II I 1? 80.1 III rcjccicd the argument that there was any substantivc legitimate expectation that the poi icy relating to parole for certain category of pi -isoners could not be cli irigcd cifld i equli cd piiot consultation It was held that the most that a conytcted p!'isoner can legitimately expect 'is that his case be examined individually In the light of whatever policy The Secretary of Slate sees hi to adopt provided always that the adopted policy is a law ti! exere Se of i.he (lisCrCtioi'i conlleiTed upon him by the statuic. Any other view wool (1 crita] I the conclusion that the unfettered discretion, conferred by statute upon l:lie minister ( an in some cases be 1 eSti icted 50 as 1(1 haniper, or cvcn to pi event di ing S of policy 3$. 'ftc above was the stage of development of the law wheti in iVavjyoii Co-operative Group i -lousing Society i'. (Jiiion 0/india

(1992) 4 SCC 477 the Supreme Court adopted the priieiple to grant 'el iet' to the Pci itioners in that case. l'he hicts were that the existing list of, co-operative sociel es lbr allotment of land was altered under a changed pot icy by reckoning the S . seniority with reference to the date of approval of the final list by the Rcgisl i 'u I lie Supi cmc ( OLilt accepted the ai gunient that a I lcetcd societies • had a legitiniate expectation that the past consisl,cnl pr2ietiee would be Wp (c) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, . 6447108 6494108 6761108 7366109 & 14034109 [ol lowed P articulcrly SInCC the Respondents [cit lcd to shO\\ aiiy ov uriding

public incrcst. 3'.) in Food Corj,oralion of India v. ICain aii/inii cattle J"eed Jndnstrie.c

(199) / S( ( 71 the detion of the appe,11ant in iclusino to acccpl IL esp iclent's highest tender for purchase of stocks ui dan aged h.od grains w is ehal lenged It was submitted lb it thei c eoLild not be any snhscqoent ncgotiiii;ion to improve updh the highest bid and that the person oiThi -ing i.h highest tcndei h id a legitim tie expcct Won that IL bid WOLtI (I be accepted. Negativit ig die plea ol the Respondcnt it was licld thai h I he mete te isonahlc or lcgitlmatL 6pictation of ,i Iiti/Ln in such a siliiatioii, may not by itself he a distinct en brceahlc right, but Iai tire to consider and give clue weight to it nay render the decision arhitrai -y, and this is how the requirement at diie consideration or a legitimate expLcl Won Imis p iii of IL ii inciple ol non-arbiti -ariness, a necessli y concomitant of the nile of law. I veiy legitimate expectation is a rckvant I i lot rcqttiflng dtic consicjeralion in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a qi.iestion of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to he deterini tied not according to the claimants perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important coiisiderations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legit mate cxpcclatton of the claimant. A bona flde decision of the public authority reached in IN manner WoLild satisfy the requt icmnerl of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. '.fhe doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimi latccl in the nile of law and operates in our legal systen.) in this manner and to this extent." WI' (C) Nos. 9478107. 9525107. 9546107, 9568107. 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 34034109 Poq' 23 of 35 '10. The doctnne was .tiirther developed in Union of India i'. llindi,.clan I)evekp;;zen( (]orporation (1993) 3 SCC499 whet-c it \VaS expl.aincc.i in i1 lifi

28 that: "Ihe legitimacy ol'an expectation can he in (CiTed only i it is founded on the sanction of law or custoni or an csial)Iislled proCcdutC followed in regular and natural sequence. Again ii is distinguishable Ironi a genuine expectation. Such expectation should he justifiably legitimate and proteclable. I very such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into d right and • therlbre it does 1101 amount to I nght in the conventioiiai Sense." • It was ftirther explained in para 33: "The doctrine does not give scope to claim i -el ci straightaway . ,. • horn the administrative aui:horities as no cryslalis.cd ri)ht as such is involved. 'l'h'e protection of such icgitiniale expectation • does not require the fulfillment oi the expectation whet e an overriding public interest requires otherwise, in other words • ' where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a p u liculai dccision tlicn dec. is ion rnakci should justify the .••' •. (leil ial of such expectation by showing sonic overratuig piihl te interest. 'ITherefbre even ii substantive protection of such expectation is contei'nplated that does not grant in absolute riglit to a particular person. It simply citsuies the eiretio .istariees in that expectatipn may be denied or restiietcd A case of legitimate expectation would arise when a body by • rcpi-cscntntion or by l?ast practice aroused expectation wh icli ii would he within its powers to friil'ill. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial i-evicw can be within those linmits." WP (c,i Nos, 9478107 9525107, 9546107, 9566107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 140341119 I'oq' 24 of 35 • , , , 'Ii A 11cr emphasising that the burden was on the person who bases h is • .. cii m oil tile doctrine o I legitiniate expectation to satisfy that there has been a rcpreSCntatlon or a past practice that has given rise to such .cxpeclatioii, It • fliust he shown that the decision of the auihoi-ity WUS ".ii bitrary, • unreasonable and not taken in pLibliC interest'. It was observed: "II it is a • quesiion of flol!ey, even by way of change of old policy, the coLrts cannot interfere with the decision". .1 vcn if the coull was sat is lied that a case of legtunate expectation was made out, it CaII grant ref ci only where the 11iil tire to give an opportunity of bearing prior to such decision has iesulted in I iii Lii C of jiisticc •

¶42In Madras Guy Wine Merchants ' Association v. Slate of 7./V. (1994) 5 • 5CC 509 the licence holders invoked past practice to claiiii a leLitinatc • . • expectation of , rcnewal ofbar I icences under the I amil N ado Frolubiti on Act, 1937 read with the Tami I Nadu (Vending in liar) Rules 1992. Rehire the bar liccncees coLild apply for renewal, a policy decision Wi:l5 tiikcn not to • renew their licenecs. It was held that even under the earlier policy, a licence under t:hc Bar Rules was only for a pciod of one year and renewal was based pp payment of 15 9/0 more than the "privilege amol.inl at wh cli the sale of 7 the privilege was con firmed the previous year '' . Renewal for the third year was on payment of 10% more than the privilege amount. It wil held that "if there is a change in policy or in public interest the position is 4 - S • altered by a rulc or legislation, no question of legitimate eXpectat ion would arise. It was observed that the expectation that the licence would be renewed at best was at best "a hope". WE' (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107. 9546107, 9568107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109&14034109 Pagt'25 of 35 l'helaw regnrdng legitimate expectation was discussed in great detail thereafter in Pun/nh Coininunications p. Union of India (1999) 4 SCC

¶727the hicts were Oat the Asian Development Uank ( I )h') agreed to lend to the Government of India US 113 million for providinrt diiitaI wi cless telecom keility to 36 000 identified vi Iiges in I stei n U P lie ippell nit and inothei company were short listed after exarmiu.thon of lIme üthis of scvcral Indian and foreign companies. I lowever, a high level uoiinii ttec IhereaIlr disqual fled the appellant to enakle the calling ol ftesh tendei s on the basis of the analog system I he Union of InTa took a pot icy decision not to avail the A.D13 loan. The previous tenders were accordingly cancel led. The appellant invoked legitimate expectation ol a substantive naluie to nige that tli it even if the goveinnieni was funding the pioje i on its own, the policy could rot lie chnggd and time original tender notilication mild not be abandoned. Negativing these ai go iiieiitS it \\' iS held th it "change in pot icy can defeat a substantive legitimate expectation if it can be justified on Wedneshurv.reasonableness (Associated .I'roi'incuzl Pictures houses Ltd. v. J'Ved;ieshnr)' Corp /19481 .1 KB 223 (]A). We have noticetl that in Ihnc/uclan I)ei'e/opnenl Corporal/on case, also it was laid down that the decision maker has the choice in the balancing of tIme psos and coms mc levani to the change in policy. It is thci eloi e clem (hat the cholu ol the Policy is liii the decision makei and not toi thc ( ouit I hr legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the Cotirt to Ond out if the change in policy, which is the cause br clebatmnm the legitimate expectation is irrational on pervuse or one wliich no reasonable person could have made".. the above law has been reiterated iii a Jargc ni.mniber of cases in di fIei cot contexts I he most i eeent judgment being Jasbii S,n,'J, ( hliahi a We (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447108,6494108,6761108,7366109&14034109 l'aqe26 of 35 Stuk' of Pun jab 2010

(2) SCALE 754, where the. plea of legitiniate. expectation of being allotted, residential plots only on the basis ot past practice ol' the Punjab Small lndi.isiries and .lixpori Corpoi -alion lid. was negatived by the SLipi-cme Court.

¶45In complete this narration, it must he noticed .bat the .lii'iglisl'i Coors • cool note to redraw the contours of the clocirme. laws Ii in I? (on the aj)plu'a!wn of Bliall Murphy (a fil-in) v. Independent Assessor 120081 • If WCA Ci' 755 pointed out the difflculnes in drawing the line between substantive legitimate expectation and ordinary judicial review ot a new policy. I'lc explained that while the latter might require app! cation ol the traditional WC(In.esbui"t' standard at review, S'Libst(ui]l i ye legiti nntte expectation would require a more involved consideration. I Ic observed: "II seems to me, however, diat on the lice of' It the existence Oki ' promise or pricttce OF present and ftiture substantive policy serves as a somewhat ftagile boundary by which to set limits to substa live legitimate expectations. Once set in place, ('PelT policy of a public authority, not subjcct to a stated icrniirial (late or terminating event, may no doubt be expected to con.ti one ir effect until rational grounds for its cessation arise. A promise of,

its continuance, if it points to no particular 'date or future event 10 mark the end of (he policy, 1-epresents little more than this ordinary expectation. And nothing is added liv referring to a practice of the policy in operation over time." ill supplied) • I .itWS I .1 proceeded to observe: "Authority shows that where a suhsta'nt iv expectation is to run the promise or practice which is its genesis is rot merely a WP (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, ' 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 Hi I relleclion 01 the ordinary fact (as I have put it) that a policy with no terminal date or terminating event will continue in Who untii rational groundS lot- its cessation arise. Rather it must - constitute a specific undertaking, directed at a 1articular • . individual or group, by which the relevant policy's • - . - continuance is assured." (emphasis suppled) '[he upshot of the above discussion, particularly in the realm of policy making, is that the burden is on the Petitioners who claim legitimate expectation to show that were was a specific representation made that their -- licences would be renewed for an indefinitçi period notwilhstanc.ling Clause - 17 of the earlier poli y as this was the standard pracee; that there was a - legiti male expectation that the change in the policy restricting the .niaxiniuni period to hve years would be only after giving therri an opportunity of being - heard; that the changed policy has fi-ustraicd the suhslani i''e. lcgi innate exprctation thus rendering the decision lint to renew the I icetices arbitrary • and unreasonable. 'l'liis Court finds that the Petitioners have not been able to, n I lie [il-si • - plce, show that there is any specific representation either to any of them or - to all of them generally that their licenecs would stand auloinai cally - renewcd year alter year by the Respondents. The mere fact that as n a ailer • of' practice the hicences were renewed does not constitute the specific representation by Lhuffespondents to each of them that indeed their I icences would he renewcd. The renewal, it roust he recalled, was only for i.i year at ii . tfme and was in accordance ,with the prevading policy and Clause 17. In • - oilier words, the only 'representation' or 'assurance' to each of them was • that at tlic iiiost: the licence would be renewed [or one iiorc year at the • WP (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, - 6447108,6494108,6761108, 7366109&14034109 - J'oge 28 of 35 discretion of the Respondent, No challenge was laid to Clause 17 ol the Wil date 0h August 2001 which left it to tile (lISci -clioll of the Respondents to renew the licence at the end of a year. 'I he reasons for the change in the policy as explained by thc Respondents appear to this Courl to constmitc suf1cient justification for such change. the scope o .1 udieiai ...rcVie\v oh such policy change is indeed limited. Unless ills shown to be' tot I 111101 mcd by any icasonabic ci itciiOu 01 not bciug in public intel ct the Court cailnot and should not interfere. Given the fact that the nuniber of shopping conlplexes is Linlikely to increase, and the waltiilg list oh appl IC ants is a gi owing OflC tile COI1COI Il of tile Respondents dl it those cx scrvicenlcfl waitilg in the eXpectatioll of 'aliOtnleilt of a shop should also be account:ed fhr, cannot be said to he an unreasonable one. 13011, giolips 01 CX - serviceiTieil, ic, the present allottecs aild those awaiting at lolnient ill_c iroiri tile Sailic 'catcllilleilt' . .Hle demand for sllofls Far exceeds t lie supply. '[here has to he a balancing of these two sets of 'expectations'. It the RL'spoildeflts take a call and decide to change the policy that the chatices of those iii the queue waiting for allotment of shops i flif0VCS, tile Court cannot be expected to judicially review such policy. As explained in Math'as Cii' Wine Merchants', 110 question of legitimate expectation would arise if tllerc is a change in policy or tile position is altered by a rule or lcgisiatiou. .. 4$ 'the Petitioners have not questioned . the DSC Rules 2006 or the . Guidelines issued in Septeilber 2008. Ii. appears that cach of these - . Petitioners has been a henehciary of renewal licence several tlilles over. 1 ieh 01 tilenl has been granted I CI1CW ii Jor 11101 C lb ill till cc ycai S WfliCh is the nia)qillUill period of licence envisaged under Rule 1 3 of die I )SC Roles. WP (C) Nos. 9478/07, 9525107, 9545107, 9568107, - 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 7-11 has hcen made clear in Clause 8 of the September 2008 Chiidehnes that the DSC Rules would apply to the shopping complexes covered by 3.42.1 of SOA 1983. Consequently, even procedurally, nore of' the Petitioner can harbour a legitimate expectation of being consulted before a change. in the policy. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court negatives the j)lea that the rnpugnçd changed policy as announced by the SOP dated I 31 A pr1 2007 0-usirates any legitimate expectation, either substantive or procedural, of the Petitioners and is therefore rendered arbitrary or unreasonable. Jinpugiied orde,-s ,ieither disci'iminztory no!' urhitrur)' 'flie SOA 1983, the DSC •RLiles 2006' and the Guidelnics date ill September 2008 leave no manner oF doubt that Regimental shops (unit shops) ai -c (listinci and di 1ièi'ent than shops in shopping complexes and both $eiS oF shops are not governed by the sdile conditions. The pica of the Petitioners that t!ere is any discr innnation 'on di is score does not merit acceptance. The classification of such 'shops into two distinct categories appqars. to he based on rational criteria, subscrving di Cftreni objecis. Regimental shops are essentially for providing daily leeds of troops. Shopping complexes serve the civilian population as 'well. The bict that the DSC Rules 2006 provide a 1104 quota for civilians in shoppmg complexes 'I • (Rule 12), which Rule has not been challenged, is a poinler to the Fact that . the shops in shopping complexes arc not nicant exclusively for cx' servicemen. 'Cite 60% quota for the exserviceiicn is nitleed a wchlarc WP (C) Nos. 9478/07, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 measure and tlieirefoft, llici:c cannot be any \ICSted right or bei rig at lotted such shops. The fact that civilians have been a] totted sonic or the shops is therefoi'e consistent with the above provision in the DSC Rules 2006. The contention of the Petitioners that any shoelace in the shops available for allot went to CX-SCi'VicCniCri can be iTiade up by asking the civi hans to vacate the shops allotted to them is thcrcfbi'e niiscooceivcd.

¶51'l'his Court is unable to find the decision ni tlie Respondents to restrict the lir'ei'ice period in respect of shops in shopping complexes to hvc years with 'the oppoinity of again applying a1't'r a break of three years to be either discriminatory or ai'bitrai -y. Also, any picjudice that may be caosed to the Petitioners in whose cases the licences were renewed prior to the clliTigf • in the policy has been neutralized by the fact that they have coot ni.icd in possessIon for nearly three years therea 11cr (amounting to iiiore than two renewals) tinder the interim orders of It Court. As regai'ds those Pef!tionei's seeking trans fer of the existing licence in their capacity as • widows of cx-scrvicemcn, they would he govei'ned by Rule 7 of the l)SC Ri.tl ?006 and in any event, they too have continued to be in the premises lbr bqyopd the period of licence under the interim orders o 1 , 1 Ii is Court, 520 eloi'e concluding this portion of the judgment, this Court would like to observe that there are at present at least live documents that govern the licence granted to the allottec of a shop in a shopping complex. lirst we have the SOA 1981 para 3112.1 of which describes what a shopping coiriplcx is. '[hen there is the licence deerl icl 1' wInch set.s out some of t lie WI' (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, • • 6447108, 64.94/08, 6761108, 7366109 & .Z4034/0.9 Paq' 31 of 35 app cable terms and conditions. Then ihere are the I )SC Rules 2006. '[here ippe us to he some inconsistency between the RUICS and the conditions of the licene. '[hen we have the 'Guidelines' 0.14111 Septemhei-2008, Clause 8 01 which in Pact states that the DSC •rLIles 2006 will apply to shopping op lec coyered by Ilal'a 3.42.1 ...f' the SOA 1983. I ashy, the SOPs whiL'h are issued from time to time. In J II Ot it is the SOP dated 3 April 2007 that has givn iisc to these Set of petitions. For the purposes of giant I. and renewal ol Iicehces there is some inconsistency in these live (.locuinents which rcqui ie to be i-econciled by the Respondents. Although the Petitioners have iliemsel yes not raised any objection on this score, this 'Court 0 nds that . . qny inconsistency between the DSC rules 2006 and the SOP is not to the advantage of any of the Petitioners here as each ol them has already ovci-slaycd their respective periods of licence by many years. Nevertheless, it is imperative for the Respondents to reconcile these different documents and bring out a uniform set of Rules. I,xteiisio,i 0/time to vacate the s/zaps 53, 'I'hc Rirther aspect to he considered is of the hardship Paced by these Petitioners by relatively sudden change ol policy. Considering that many oF ilie Petitioners have been getting their Iiccnces. renewed br the past several years, the announcement made in June 2007 'ol a policy made el'lèctive 30' H April 2007, stating that thei'e would he no renewal beyond hivc years nmst have indeed come as an unpleasant surrisc. '[he nature ol retail trade is such that most shop keepers have to buy stock on credit and are Linder constanf pressrire as to liquidity. Unless sufficient time is given for vacahMl

thu shops, it wt II undoubtedly cause severe prejudice. It is nnderstindihIe tlipt finding iltei'nai:ive commercial space to run a shop may neither he easy WI' (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568107, 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 !'aqo 32 of 35 nor aflort able in the. cases of the Petitioners betorc the Court.! iowever, given the numher oiyears they have enjoyed the benefit, the need to give the ofhers in the queue a simi tar opportunity would outweigh such hardship. Having said that, with a change in policy having been niadc atier nearly six yetus, a time period of thirty days to vacatc the prenjscs cannot he said to he a reasonable one:

¶54Under Rule 3(a) of the J)SC AS 2006, the existing a! lottees were allowed to continue till tile expiry of their licence period and such of those I uauthorized occupation of tile shops i.e., whei-e tile period of licence has expired, would be given six illOiltIlS time to vacate in terms of We 30) failuig wlueh the I state Offieei would iiutiate action to evict I heili in aeeoi ci lnee with law. I he minimuni time to vicite the shops in (Iuestiou . h wing been set out in RLile 3(a) itself ought to be six mouths andAuckm the nllpugiled notices giving the Petitionei-s' thirty days' time for the purpose were contrary to the above provision in the I )SC L u les 2006. II owever, as a result of the illterull orders the Peti hollers have continued well beyond the six nlontlls' period.

¶55In the peculiar facts and circunistances. of the case, as far as the Petitioners helure the Court are concerned, this Court is of the view dial a birther penio.l of sx illolIthS must he given to each or 111cm to vacate the shops nuder their occupation. This would out inc jude si.ieh of those -' Petitioners which have vacated the shops during le peildeiey of the present eas.. W!'(C)Nos.9478/07,9525107,9546107, 9568107, 6447108 6494/08 6761108 7366/09&1404/09 Iag( 33 of 3', -- - J-_ So. it is accordingly directed that each of these Petitioiiers, except those who have already vacated the shops allotted to them, shall he given six months' time to vacate the shops in their respective occupation. In other words, they should hand over the shops QO or hclore I 51 January 201 1 This would be further subject to each of them 0 hirii an a[lidavit hclorc this Court undertaking that (i) they will hand over vacant and peace hi possession of the shop(s) in their occupation on or belbre I 51 January 201 1

(ii) that they will promptly pay the licence lee as and when it hi! Is clue, (iii) and Furl her OICY will not sublet the premises or induct any other person or entity into the shop(s) in their occipation. It is made clear that this intlertaking should he filed within ten days Ironi today, i.e., on or beFore 21 ' july 2010, thiling which it would he open to the Respondents to foilhwi th initiate proceedings under the PP Act for eviction of the Petifinci -s, Where such proceedings have already been initiated and such of those Petitioners file the above undertaking within the WE granted by the (;rt the PP Act proceedings would remain stayed till 15 11, .TanLiary 201 I or upon the Petitioners violating any of the terms of the undertal< I rig. It is needless to say that where the Petitioners aller giving (lie onderi ak ing to this Court, violate any of the terms of the undertaking, they will he liable to be proceeded with forthwith both for contempt ui court and proceedings under the PP Act.

¶57It is niade clear that the directions issued by the Court granting One to the Petilioncis to vacate the shops under their occupation is limited only to the Petitioners beibre the Court who have not vacated the prcmiscs and is not to be treated as a precedent for any other a[louee. The aI:loirnents made WI' (C) Nos. 9478/04 9525/07, 9546/01 9568107, - 6447108, 6494108, 6761108, 7366109 & 14034109 . !'og' 34 of 35 cv ol sliojis in shopping COnlplLXes hcicittci \\'OLi!d strictly he in dcc nid lii( C wiiii [he DSC Rules 2006 and the other ielevant instruments which have been reftrred to earlier, as amended from time to time.

¶58For all the above mentioned reasons and SLibjCCt to the directions ISSLILCI, the writ petitions arc dismissed. the interim o.dcrs sLind vacated anc.I the pciçing ppphicatic)ns stand disposed of S. MU1AI IDJ I AR, 1 .JULV 12, 2010 . rk WP (C) Nos. 9478107, 9525107, 9546107, 9568/07 64471ps, 6494108, 676.1108, 7366109 & 14034109 Poye 3.5 df3S '1

IN THE HIGH COU1T OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: May 31, 2010 Decision on: July 12, 2010 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 6494/2008 & CM APPL 12381/08 VIJENDER SINGH .... Petitioner Through: Col. K. Digambar Singh, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .... Respondents Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate Is CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR