Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"nos. 85, 271,these files are missing. It is not their fault, they be regularized as others."

However, the petitioners' occupation was not regularized. Apparently, a representation was made to the Prime Minister's Office, and the nothings reveal that the case could not be processed due to the files being untraced. Others however, got the benefit o regularization; offers were dispatched to them, in that regard. The file also shows that the cut off date for consideration was sought to be extended to 4-12-1985, instead of the original date, 6-5-1975. Subsequently, there was a rethinking, and the Urban Development Ministry took a decision not to actually regularize any unauthorized occupant, or relax the cut off, until formulation of a general policy in that regard. The noting dated 20-1-1987 records that the proposal to extend the cut off date was dropped "in view of the decision to transfer the markets under the administrative control of this directorate to local bodies The same note records as follows:

ii] Whether the petitioner can secure allotment of the premises in terms of the1995 Policy;

iii] Whether the petition is not maintainable because of laches and the directions in Tiwari's case.Point No. 1: Whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of the premises in his name, on account of the decision by the Minister and whether any vested right accrued in terms of old policy;

20. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Minster in his favor. As per his pleadings, the petitioner met the officials on several occasions, when the issue of regularization of occupancy of sub-lessees/ partners was under consideration. He made several representations. According to the petitioner, his case was for some reason not considered because the relevant files were missing. When these facts were drawn to the notice of the Minster, he made a noting that the petitioner was not at fault, because his file was missing. He therefore, directed that the petitioner's case for regularization too had to be processed along with the case of the others. These facts have not been disputed. Indeed, the records produced before court bear them out. The respondents on the other hand submit that though at one point the Minister undoubtedly directed consideration of the petitioner's case, yet, no right accrued; on the contrary, after consideration of all cases, it was felt that till a general l regularization policy was formulated, no action ought to be taken. Accordingly even the offers of regularization in the complex, issued to the actual occupants were not processed. Therefore, until the formulation of the policy, there was no question of the petitioner's case being given any primacy based on the Minister's decision on the files. The issue therefore is whether such orders/ nothings in the official records can confer rights or enforceable entitlements.