Delhi HC Denies Relief To Artists Against Eviction From Govt Accommodations, Says Prior Inaction Not Basis To Invoke Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation

The Delhi High Court has observed that prior inaction cannot possibly constitute a basis for invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation which itself is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution.

The observation came from a single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma who dismissed a bunch of petitions filed by various eminent Indian artists including dancers and musicians challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the Centre qua government allotted residences to them. The Centre had decided to cancel the allotment subject to the allottees being granted reasonable time to vacate the premises and identify alternate accommodation.

"Indecisiveness of the respondents to have taken a principled decision or to take precipitate action against the petitioners earlier and once the original period of license had come to an end, cannot possibly lead to a legitimate expectation arising or operating in favour of the petitioners," the Court said while dismissing the petitions.

However, in order to enable the petitioners to make alternative arrangements and be able to exit the premises with dignity, the Court granted them a two month grace period to hand over vacant possession.

"The period of two months shall commence from the date of this decision. During the aforesaid period, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against them for eviction from the premises. However, a failure on the part of the petitioners to vacate the premises within the aforesaid period shall leave the respondents open to take such further action as may be permissible in law," the Court ordered.

The petitions challenged proceedings initiated by the Centre under Section 3B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitions had originally challenged show cause notices dated 5 August 2021 pursuant to which proceedings were commenced.

Later, the petitioners also brought on record final orders dated 21 January 2022 in terms of which orders for eviction came to be passed against the them. Thereafter, the High Court had granted interim protection to the petitioners which was extended to remain in operation till the final disposal of petitions.

The petitioners, being artistes of national and international repute and in recognition of their standing of eminence and the invaluable contribution made by them for the propagation and preservation of classical art forms, were allotted the premises in question under a discretionary quota by the respondents.

The Court noted that the Selection Committee had initially undertaken a comprehensive review of existing allotments in light of the 2008 Office Memorandum and that it was in the course of that review that it found none of the existing allottees as eligible under the policy so framed.

Accordingly, recommendation was made that the policy itself be reviewed and pending further consideration, the stay of the eminent artistes may be extended for a period of 3 years beyond 28 February 2011. 

Thereafter, the matter was taken up for consideration by the inter-ministerial group in September 2020 which ultimately resolved that the allotments were liable to be cancelled subject to the allottees being granted reasonable time to vacate the premises and identify alternate accommodation.

"At this juncture, the Court also deems it apposite to observe that its judgment rendered on this batch is neither liable to be viewed nor construed as the Court even momentarily doubting the eminence of the petitioners or refusing to acknowledge the invaluable contribution made by each of them for the preservation of classical art forms. They have undisputedly been indelibly connected with the preservation of our ancient culture and heritage itself. Their achievements have led to them being conferred with some of the highest civilian honours by a grateful nation. However, the Court must, as it is so invited to do by the petitioners, in discharge of its constitutional obligation rule on the merits of the challenge raised before it in accordance with the legal principles which apply and the policy as formulated by the respondents alone," the Court said at the outset.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the legitimate expectation of the petitioners had been violated by the respondents who had failed to act fairly. It was also submitted that keeping in mind the stature and eminence of the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the respondents to ensure that they were treated fairly and not unceremoniously asked to vacate the premises at the height of the raging pandemic.

Tracing the history of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court observed thus:

"The invocation of the principles of legitimate expectation in the present batch, however, would have to be examined in the backdrop of the following facts which clearly emerge. The allotment in favor of the petitioners was made under a discretionary quota vesting in the respondents. That discretionary quota was itself subject to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation."

The Court noted that all the petitioners had remained in possession of the public premises for decades together, however, neither the 1985 nor the 2008 policies guaranteed or held out any promise of the extension of the license period beyond the maximum period prescribed.

"The Court fails to countenance any right arising in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the inaction on the part of the respondents. An expectation that the respondents would continue to remain passive or unassertive cannot be recognised as legitimate. In any case, inaction cannot possibly constitute a basis for invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation which itself is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution," the Court held.

It added "The Court notes that the claim of legitimate expectation as raised does not rest on any express or unequivocal promise or assurance of the respondents. The pro tem extensions accorded by the respondents cannot, in law, be viewed as giving rise to a legitimate expectation."

With the aforesaid observations, the pleas were dismissed.

Case Title: BHARATI SHIVAJI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 152

Click Here To Read Order