Summary
The Court upheld the five-year limit on licences for shops allotted to ex-servicemen and their families, with eligibility to apply afresh after a three-year break. Earlier annual renewals created no perpetual or vested entitlement. Reliance on a draft government letter did not establish pleaded and proved fraud, and the policy remained valid independently of that letter. A connected appeal also failed because it arose from a second review and followed an earlier unsuccessful Supreme Court challenge.
Issues
- Whether use of a draft government letter established fraud vitiating the earlier decisions.
- Whether the Station Commander’s five-year policy was valid and defeated a claim to continued renewal.
- Whether the connected second-review appeal was maintainable.
Held
- Fraud must be pleaded and proved; every improper act is not fraud. The disclosed draft letter and allegations first made before the Supreme Court did not establish fraudulent conduct. The letter could be disregarded without changing the outcome. (¶ 7)
- On the appellant’s own premise that later rules and guidelines did not apply, the 2005 transfer-of-management provision had not become operative, leaving the Station Commander able to amend the 2001 SOP through the 2007 policy. (¶ 9–10)
- Annual discretionary renewal did not create an entitlement to remain indefinitely. Limiting occupancy to five years allowed other eligible ex-servicemen and families rehabilitation opportunities, and was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Past practice without a specific assurance did not establish the asserted legitimate expectation. (¶ 10–13)
- The connected appellants’ second review was not maintainable. Having already obtained time to vacate after dismissal of their earlier special leave petition and availed that benefit, they could not raise fresh grounds in the later appeal. (¶ 15)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; pending applications disposed of.