Case Note & Summary
The appellant, UP Housing and Development Board, floated a scheme for Economically Weaker Sections in 1982. The respondent deposited Rs 500 in 1982 and an additional Rs 500 in 1985 for registration. Clause 5 of the Registration Booklet and Rules 15 and 30 of the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Registration and Allotment of Plots and Houses Rules, 1979, clearly stated that mere registration does not confer any right to allotment, and registered applicants must submit written consent to participate in the draw of lots. The respondent never provided such consent. In 1992, the appellant published an advertisement, but the respondent did not respond. In 1993, the respondent filed a consumer complaint. The District Forum in 1995 directed that the respondent could seek allotment at current market value. The respondent appealed to the State Commission, but remained absent for years, leading to dismissal in 2015. The respondent then filed a revision before the NCDRC, which in 2018 directed the appellant to allot a ground floor flat in Mandola Vihar Yojana, Ghaziabad, for Rs 2,50,000. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the NCDRC's order was without legal basis. The Court emphasized that mere registration does not create a vested right to allotment, and the NCDRC could not compel a public authority to enter into a contract at an arbitrary price. The impugned order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Housing Board Allotment - Mere Registration Does Not Confer Right to Allotment - UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Registration and Allotment of Plots and Houses Rules, 1979, Rules 15, 30 - Clause 5 of Registration Booklet - The respondent registered under a scheme for Economically Weaker Sections in 1982 but never submitted written consent for participation in draw of lots. The Supreme Court held that mere registration does not create any right to allotment, and the Board is not bound to allot to every registered holder. The NCDRC erred in directing allotment at a fixed price of Rs 2,50,000 without any contractual basis. (Paras 2-16) B) Contract Law - Public Authority - Consumer Forum Cannot Compel Public Authority to Enter into Contract at Arbitrary Price - The NCDRC's direction to allot a flat at Rs 2,50,000 was based on no rationale or justification, and was contrary to basic principles of contract. The appellant, as a public authority, could not be compelled to enter into a contract with the respondent. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a registered applicant under the UP Housing Board's scheme has a vested right to allotment of a flat, and whether the NCDRC could direct allotment at a fixed price of Rs 2,50,000 in the absence of any contractual entitlement.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of NCDRC set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mere registration does not confer right to allotment
- No vested right to allotment without written consent
- Consumer forum cannot compel public authority to enter into contract at arbitrary price
- Rules of 1979 and Registration Booklet govern allotment
