M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) "Promissory estoppel", interchangeably "equitable estoppel", has been the sheet -anchor of the claim of the petitioners invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To defeat such claim, the State of Haryana has resorted to alternates ranging from exercise of sovereign power to flexibilities. The doctrine of "promissory estoppel" essentially being one of good conscience and rooted in morality would require to be invoked in a set of facts. Let the facts giving rise to the present petition be taken note of.
(2.) THE five petitioners aver that they are residents of Sector -15 of Industrial Estate, Faridabad. According to them, Faridabad Complex has been developed as an industrial and a residential complex controlled by an Estate Officer. Sector -15 thereof was claimed as exclusively meant for residence and a small market was to be set up for the residents, according to the Scheme of the Development of the Estate. The scheme was claimed to be embodied in the plan attached with the petition marked Annexure P. 1. That plan ex facie carries no written representations in the form of undertakings. It is the lay out plan of Sector -15 prepared by a Government functionary. It contains, amongst other things, a Schedule of plots and a legendary item of a Shopping Centre, drawn approximately in the middle. The claim of the petitioners is based on the drawings of plan, Annexure P. 1, as it was stated to have been issued and adopted by the respondents -the State of Haryana; the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad . The drawings in the place are claimed by the petitioners to be reflective of such conduct, action and consideration of the respondents that the same could not be altered, or not stuck to, to the disadvantage of the petitioners who have purchased residential plots in Sector 15 and had raised constructions thereon. It was claimed that the plan issued by the respondents was sacrosanct and unalterable. The petitioners' need to file the present petition arose on account of a set of events. The State of Haryana carved out a new district of Faridabad out of the territories of erstwhile district of Gurgaon and shifted its district headquarter there sometime in 1979. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA"), an Authority established under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (Haryana Act No. 13 of 1977), had during this while constructed 13 shops in the Shopping Centre in Sector 15. It is claimed by the petitioners that the State of Haryana had asked the Chief Administrator, HUDA (respondent No. 2) to locate the civil and criminal Courts in those 13 shops, to which apparently the respondents inter -se were in agreement. It is claimed by the petitioners that accommodating the Courts, in the heart of residential accommodation would be against the provisions of the Scheme of the Development of the Estate, and also against the assurance given by the authorities that the Sector would only be used for residential purposes for which small market would be provided to cater to the needs of the residents. The appurtenant uses, like the Bar Room, Judicial Lock -up and other ancillary offices with the Judicial Courts, was claimed by the petitioners to be depriving them of their privacy, calm and decency. Fear was expressed in the petition that neither would any shopkeeper be willing to come and man the Shaping Centre, which would mean depriving the residents of shopping facility, nor would it he possible for ladies to move about freely when all sorts of people, including criminals, were likely to throng those buildings. In a nut -shell, the location of District Courts in the Shopping Centre was claimed as likely to create an intolerable nuisance for the residents. Being against the scheme of Development of the Estate as also subject to "promissory estoppel" the intended change of the Scheme led to the filing of the present petition. The petitioners prayed for the issuance of a suitable writ, order or direction requiring the State Government to desist from locating the district Courts in the Shopping Centre.
(3.) IN a join return filed by the respondents, preliminary objections have been taken in the first instance. Maintainability of a joint petition at the instance of the petitioners has been questioned on the ground that each of them was allotted plot by different allotment orders. The second objection raised was that the HUDA is the absolute owner of 6 shop -cum -flats in Sector 15 and that as owner could use its immovable property the way it liked. Additionally, it was pleaded that the intended user or arrangement was only provisional till the construction of a new Judicial Complex. The third objection raised was that the Punjab Government, vide notification dated 19th January, 1966, had issued a Final Development Plan in exercise of its powers under section 5(7) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Controlled Areas Act"). This published Final Development Plan carried restrictions and conditions self -embodied for the controlled area. In terms thereof, Sector 15 was earmarked as a residential zone. All the same, a residential zone could, amongst others, make provisions for public utility building and commercial and professional offices besides residences. It was pleaded that Courts could squarely be termed public utility offices as also commercial and professional offices, since the lawyers too would be practising there.;