BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus AJAI PAL SINGH & ORS.

BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus AJAI PAL SINGH & ORS.

The rights of the allottees were determined by a non-statutory, purely contractual arrangement with the BDA. Written consent to revised terms meant the respondents were bound by contract terms, and no writ lies against alleged breach of such contract in the absence of statutory obligations. The High Court erred in intervening under Article 226.

Parties
Appellant: Bareilly Development Authority & Anr.; Respondent: Ajai Pal Singh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 February 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Special Leave Against Order of Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Writ Jurisdiction, Public Authorities as State (article 12), Government Contracts, Promissory Estoppel, Price Fixation, Remedies for Breach of Contract, Urban Planning
Constitutional Law Contract Law Administrative Law Writ Jurisdiction Public Authorities as State (article 12) Government Contracts Promissory Estoppel Price Fixation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bareilly Development Authority & Anr.

Appellant

Ajai Pal Singh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Special Leave Against Order of Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the revision of price and instalments by the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) for the allotted dwelling units is arbitrary and unreasonable;
  2. 2 Whether applicants/allottees can challenge the revised terms of allotment in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 after having given written consent;
  3. 3 Whether the contract between the BDA and allottees is purely contractual or has a statutory character so as to justify mandamus under Article 226 against the authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The rights of the allottees were determined by a non-statutory, purely contractual arrangement with the BDA. Written consent to revised terms meant the respondents were bound by contract terms, and no writ lies against alleged breach of such contract in the absence of statutory obligations. The High Court erred in intervening under Article 226.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • The orders of the Allahabad High Court directing the BDA to re-determine cost and instalments are set aside;
  • No order as to costs;