Yamuna Kamal Club vs. Delhi Development Authority

Held

The Court held that the online booking, payment, and acceptance by the DDA constituted a concluded contract, creating a legitimate expectation for the petitioner. The cancellation of the booking was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation. The Court found that the DDA's "Online Policy" provided specific grounds for cancellation (Clause 6(xiii)), which were not invoked. The reliance on the Office Order of September 7, 2023, and the list from the Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh was found to be without proper application of mind, especially since the Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh is not a statutory committee under the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957. The DDA's action of cancelling the booking without notice or adhering to its own policy terms was deemed arbitrary and unfair. The Court set aside the impugned communication cancelling the booking and permitted the petitioner to proceed with its booking for the specified period, subject to compliance with all applicable norms and conditions. The ratio decidendi is that public authorities must act rationally, in good faith, and adhere to their own policies and principles of legitimate expectation when dealing with citizens, especially after accepting payments and confirming bookings.

Facts

The petitioner, Yamuna Kamal Club, booked two open plots (EZ-68C and EZ-68B) from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on June 7, 2023, for holding a Ramleela function between October 2 and October 31, 2023. The total booking charges of Rs. 3,28,426/- were paid on the same date, and the booking was confirmed by the DDA on June 11, 2023, via email. The booking was made through the DDA's online portal, subject to its "Online Policy." On September 14, 2023, the petitioner discovered its booking was cancelled via an Office Order dated September 7, 2023, issued by the DDA. This order was based on a meeting chaired by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, which decided that bookings for Ramleela would be made as per a list provided by the Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the online booking made by the petitioner, coupled with payment and acceptance by the respondent, constituted a concluded contract that the respondent could not unilaterally cancel? (Question of law) 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's booking, based on an Office Order referencing directives from the Lieutenant Governor and a list from the Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh, was arbitrary and contrary to the respondent's own "Online Policy" and statutory provisions? - Petitioner's arguments: The online booking formed a concluded contract. The cancellation was arbitrary and violated the "Online Policy." The Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh has no locus standi as it is not a committee formed under the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgment in DDA v. Joint Action Committee and this Court's judgment in York Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. DDA. The "Online Policy" only allows cancellation under specific terms (Clause 6(xiii)), which were not met. The respondent cannot withdraw a concluded contract without following its own terms and conditions. - Respondent's arguments: There was no concluded contract, only a temporary allotment. The bookings are made strictly as per the list provided by the Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh pursuant to the Office Order of September 7, 2023. Clause 15 of the "Terms and Conditions for Temporary Allotment of Land" reserves the right to withdraw permission under "forced circumstances." The DDA can change or modify terms and conditions without notice.