Summary
The Court upheld cancellation of group-housing licences granted through Haryana’s asserted first-come-first-served practice. The governing instruments did not disclose that selection method or establish the claimed consistent practice. With a limited sector-area allocation, applicants needed a fair and transparent opportunity, even where development concerned privately owned land. The unsuccessful writ petitioners likewise could not demand consideration under the invalid method. Pending applications could be considered under the 2017 policy in accordance with law.
Issues
- Whether the asserted first-come-first-served method for these group-housing licences met Article 14 standards.
- Whether licences could be cancelled when their holders had been joined and heard on the validity of the selection process.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe undisclosed, unsupported selection practice failed the requirements of non-arbitrariness, fairness and equal opportunity in allocating limited development licences. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42)
Held
- Neither the statutory scheme nor the public notice, development plan and policy instructions established the asserted first-come-first-served selection method. Despite opportunity, the State failed to produce its foundation or demonstrate a consistent established practice. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39)
- A method susceptible to chance and privileged advance information did not provide the required transparent competition. Where group housing was subject to a 20% sector-area cap, all eligible applicants needed a fair opportunity. Private ownership of the land did not remove the State’s Article 14 obligations in granting licences. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 40)
- The licence holders were parties, knew the substantive issue, filed counter-affidavits and had an opportunity to be heard. Absence of an unequivocal separate challenge to each licence did not invalidate cancellation consequential upon rejection of the selection method. Other licence holders who were not parties were not adversely dealt with. (¶¶ 14, 15, 41, 42)
- The original writ petitioners could not themselves seek consideration under the method held invalid. All pending applications, including those of the appellants, could be considered under the subsequently introduced 2017 policy in accordance with law; no licence was directly awarded. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45)
Result
Appeals dismissed, sustaining cancellation of the impugned licences. Applications could be considered under the 2017 policy in accordance with law. Pending applications disposed of.