SC dismisses plea against Delhi HC decision on implementation of Delhi CMs speech on rent relief
New Delhi Feb 28 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Delhi High Court decision to stay an order directing the AAP government to decide and formulate a policy on the implementation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwals announcement that if a poor tenant was unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic the state would pay itA bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant which perused the speech of Kejriwal said promissory estoppel will not lie on the basis of speech There has to be some policy a notification has to be issued in this regardIn contract law promissory estoppel refers to the doctrine that a party may recover based on a promise made as it had relied on the said promiseThe bench said that it is an interlocutory order passed by the Delhi High Court and therefore it is not interfering with itSince the Special Leave Petition is directed against an interlocutory order which has been passed by the division bench of the High Court in an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution has been made out The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on that ground it orderedOn September 27 last year the Delhi High Court had stayed an order of single-judge bench directing the AAP government to formulate a policy on the implementation of the Chief Ministers announcement that if a poor tenant was unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic the state would pay itThe High Court had issued notice on the Delhi governments appeal against the order passed by a single judge who had also held that a Chief Ministers promise to citizens is enforceable in natureThe notice was issued to petitioners — daily wagers and workers — on whose petition the single judge had passed the order which has been challenged by the Delhi GovernmentIt had said that irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant Delhi government if an order of stay is not passedOn July 22 last year a single-judge bench of the High Court had ruled that a Chief Ministers promise to citizens was enforceable and directed the AAP government to decide within six weeks Kejriwals announcement that the state would pay rent on behalf of a poor tenant who is unable to do so on account of COVID19The judge had said that against the backdrop of a commitment made by the Chief Minister a lack of decision-making or indecision was contrary to lawA statement given in a consciously held press conference in the background of the lockdown announced due to the pandemic and the mass exodus of migrant labourers cannot be simply overlooked Proper governance requires the government to decide on the assurance given by the CM and inaction on the same cannot be the answer the single judge had said in the verdictThe judge had said that in the present case the assurance was not a political promise as was sought to be canvassed as it was not made as a part of an election rally but it was the statement made by the Delhi Chief MinisterThe statement was not made by a government functionary at a lower level in the hierarchy who could be devoid of such knowledge The CM is expected to have had the said knowledge and is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to his promiseassurance the judge had said adding that a citizen would believe that the CM has spoken on behalf of his government while making the promise PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS
New Delhi Feb 28 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Delhi High Court decision to stay an order directing the AAP government to decide and formulate a policy on the implementation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwals announcement that if a poor tenant was unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic the state would pay itA bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant which perused the speech of Kejriwal said promissory estoppel will not lie on the basis of speech There has to be some policy a notification has to be issued in this regardIn contract law promissory estoppel refers to the doctrine that a party may recover based on a promise made as it had relied on the said promiseThe bench said that it is an interlocutory order passed by the Delhi High Court and therefore it is not interfering with itSince the Special Leave Petition is directed against an interlocutory order which has been passed by the division bench of the High Court in an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution has been made out The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on that ground it orderedOn September 27 last year the Delhi High Court had stayed an order of single-judge bench directing the AAP government to formulate a policy on the implementation of the Chief Ministers announcement that if a poor tenant was unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic the state would pay itThe High Court had issued notice on the Delhi governments appeal against the order passed by a single judge who had also held that a Chief Ministers promise to citizens is enforceable in natureThe notice was issued to petitioners — daily wagers and workers — on whose petition the single judge had passed the order which has been challenged by the Delhi GovernmentIt had said that irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant Delhi government if an order of stay is not passedOn July 22 last year a single-judge bench of the High Court had ruled that a Chief Ministers promise to citizens was enforceable and directed the AAP government to decide within six weeks Kejriwals announcement that the state would pay rent on behalf of a poor tenant who is unable to do so on account of COVID19The judge had said that against the backdrop of a commitment made by the Chief Minister a lack of decision-making or indecision was contrary to lawA statement given in a consciously held press conference in the background of the lockdown announced due to the pandemic and the mass exodus of migrant labourers cannot be simply overlooked Proper governance requires the government to decide on the assurance given by the CM and inaction on the same cannot be the answer the single judge had said in the verdictThe judge had said that in the present case the assurance was not a political promise as was sought to be canvassed as it was not made as a part of an election rally but it was the statement made by the Delhi Chief MinisterThe statement was not made by a government functionary at a lower level in the hierarchy who could be devoid of such knowledge The CM is expected to have had the said knowledge and is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to his promiseassurance the judge had said adding that a citizen would believe that the CM has spoken on behalf of his government while making the promise PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS
