The writ petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent dated 11.10.1990 by which the order of cancellation was passed in Anna Nagar Scheme.

2. Plot No.3623-G-11 measuring about one ground and 900 sq.ft. which was earmarked for the service industries in the lay-out was allotted to the petitioner herein the first respondent State by its order in G.O.Ms.No.1904 dated 14.12.1987. Based upon the said order, allotment was made to the petitioner on 11.4.1988 on payment of l/3rd cost of the plot on 7.4.1988 by the petitioner. The said plot was handed over petitioner on 22.4.1988 and he executed the lease cum sale agreement on 23.4.1988. stage, by order dated 13.11.1989 the second respondent cancelled the allotment petitioner and it was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.15779 of 1989 and this court order dated 28.11.1989 allowed the said writ petition giving liberty to the second respondent to dispose of the matter afresh giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In the meantime seems the petitioner was transferred to Hyderabad and on his transfer back to Madras applied for no objection certificate in the month of February, 1988. No action has taken on the request of the petitioner and he did not commence his work. A show notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.5.1990 and he filed his objections on 21.5.1990 also appeared for personal enquiry on 11.7.1990. By the impugned order, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 11.4.1988 has been cancelled on the ground that allotment made was irregular. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent 24.10.1990 along with an application praying for stay. Since no stay has been granted, petitioner is before me with the above writ petition.

3. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the conversion made only on the proposal of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, that the same was accepted the Government as well as by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as MM.D.A") and as such there is no irregularity in the said conversion. further, alleged in the affidavit that the third respondent herein has initiated the proposal conversion since there was no need for the original proposal for which the earmarked. It is further alleged that no complaint has been received from the public, prejudice was caused to any member of the public and as such the reasons cancellation are unsustainable. It is also stated in the affidavit that the respondents estopped by the principle of promissory estoppel. It is further stated in the affidavit petitioner has accepted the allotment and acted upon the same, that the cancellation at this stage would affect prejudicially and therefore the cancellation order to be set aside. It is further stated in the affidavit that in so far as the order of cancellation issued by the second respondent in pursuance of the order of the first respondent concerned, no useful purpose was served by the enquiry conducted by the respondent.

4. The first respondent has not filed a counter affidavit.

5. Acounter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3. The facts are not It is claimed in the counter affidavit that on reconsideration the Government felt that irregularities were committed in the matter of allotment of plots which were earmarked for the public purpose were allotted to the individual for the residential and as such the Government wanted to put back the plots for the original use namely public purpose as per the approved lay out. It is further stated in the counter affidavit the amount paid by the petitioner was refunded with interest on 30.11.1989 12.11.1990. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that the public interest is more than the individual interest and as such the order of cancellation has been made.

6. Mr.K.Doraisamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends original order of allotment has been made only on the proposal submitted by the Tamil Housing Board, since the plots were not used for a long time for the purpose for which were originally earmarked. The learned senior counsel points out that in fact the has accepted the conversion in all cases and that only after all the formalities are completed the order of allotment has been made. He further contends that once an order of has been made in favour of the petitioner and a portion of money has been received Tamil Nadu Housing Board and lease-cum-sale agreement has also been executed, open to the Housing Board to go back merely on the basis of the order of the Government on the ground that there were some irregularities committed, about which the petitioner no knowledge. The learned senior counsel further points out that the petitioner was responsible for the irregularities committed by then Government and as such the cancellation is bad in law. He further points out that even applying the principle promissory estoppel, the petitioner has to succeed.

7. Mr.S.Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing contends that since it is found that there were some irregularities in. allotting allotments the allottees, the Government thought it fit to cancel the allotments of the Tamil Housing Board, that the Housing Board is bound by the orders of the Government such, the impugned order has been passed for which sufficient opportunities have been to the petitioner in this case.

8. Though a list of cases had been specifically posted before me twice and insisted the M.M.D.A. records have to be produced, unfortunately records have not been and I have to proceed with the case on the materials on records on the basis of the and counter affidavits filed by respective parties.

9. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments of Mr.K.Doraisamy, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S. Dorais-amy the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Mr.A.Chellakumar, the learned counsel appearing M.M.D.A and of Mrs.N.G.Kalaiservi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent State. I am of the view, that the writ petition has to be allowed purely ground of promissory estoppel. It is not denied that when the original purpose for was earmarked, the Housing Board did not use it. No question of doctrine of comes here. In such cases, allotments were made by the Government and the actual allotment has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board after receiving a portion consideration and also executed a lease cum sale agreement. In such a situation, different view that all the allotments made earlier were erroneous in law, the Government cannot cancel all the allotments by a single stroke. No material has been before me to show that when the original allotments were made they have acted authority of law. It is well settled that any executive action is taken under Art.166 Constitution of India. So an executive order has been passed by the Government particular plot to the petitioner herein and in turn actual allotment order was passed Tamil Nadu Housing Board for which the Housing Board is empowered. Even in the allotment which .is subject to the approval of M.M.D.A. it is stated that M.M.D.A approved the conversion. Though Mr.S.Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing Housing Board tries to show that only a sub-division is made not a conversion, on of the entire records and correspondence it is seen that only a conversion has been M.M.D.A. So, the petitioner has got a plot allotted by the competent authority envisaged for allotment and the purpose for which originally earmarked was changed conversion by M.M.D.A., the authority under the powers of the Town and Country Act, 1971 who is empowered to pass such an order. As such, it cannot be said that of allotment is irregular when it was made. This court is concerned only with the allotment and on facts, I am not able to see any irregular allotment has been made. have already stated, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has received the sale consideration also has executed lease cum sale agreement Only because he was transferred to he could not apply for No Objection Certificate and could not be able to start construction, otherwise he would have started construction work.

10. The argument based on the principle of promissory estoppel, in my view applies facts of the case on hand. I have considered the issue in extenso in my W.P.No.19309 of 1990 dated 19.2.1991 and that has been confirmed by a Division this Court in W.A.No.604 of 1991 by order dated 23.4.1991. I do not see any reason from the view I have taken on the earlier occasion. I think suffice it to refer to the of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. India Tobacco Limited, A.I.R. 1986 (1985)4 S.C.C 369: (1986)1 Comp.LJ. 46: 1986 Tax.L.R 2002, and in Express Private Limited v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 872: (1986)1 S.C.C. 133. In India v. India Tobacco Limited, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 806: (1985)4 S.C.C 369: (1986)1 46: 1986 Tax L.R. 2002, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

..... The doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Government or public authority that regard to the facts as they have transpired it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the Court not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or public authority. doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on the enquiry would not require that the Government or public authority should be held bound the promise of representation made by it."

Nothing of that sort has been shown before me by any of the respondents. As I have already stated a valid allotment has been made by the then Government. When the successor Government came into power it started cancelling such allotments, the case before me of such kinds. In a similar situation, the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Limited v. Union of Initio, A.I.R 1986 S.C. 872: (1986)1 S.C.C 133, observed as follows:

".....In my considered opinion the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. having acted upon the of permission by Sikandar Bakht, the then Minister for Works and Housing and constructed the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 and a double basement in conformity with the permission granted by the lessor it, the Union of India, Ministry of works Housing with the concurrence of the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority on amalgamation of plots Nos.9 and 10, as ordered by the Vice-Chairman by his order 21st October, 1978 as on "special appear as envisaged in the Master Plan having directed, the lessor is clearly precluded from contending that the order of the Minister illegal, improper or invalid by application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel...... So also, in this case an executive order being passed under Art.166 of the Constitution India by the concerned Minister in charge under the Business Rules it cannot be said that doctrine of ultra vines is applicable. In that case, the law laid down by Lord Denning regard to the applicability of promissory estoppel in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions, 1 KB. 227, has been referred to by the Supreme Court Certain passages by Professor H.W.R. Wade in Administrative Law, 5th edition at page 32 had also been referred to by Supreme Court in the above mentioned case. Following the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned cases, I am of the view that the action of the original authority allotting plots to the petitioner herein and the consequential order of the Housing Board allotting the building to the petitioner cannot be said to be ultra vires. Newspapers Private Limited v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 872: (1986)1 S.C.C. 133, Supreme Court observed as follows:

"In the present case, admittedly the then Minister for Works and Housing acted within scope of his authority in granting permission of the lessor i.e, the Union of India. Ministry Works and Housing to the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to construct new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 within a double basement for installation of a printing press publication of a Hindi newspaper under the Rules of Business framed by the President Art.77(3). Therefore, the doctrine of ultra vires does not come into operation. In view of respondent No.1 the Union of India is precluded by the doctrine of promissory estoppel questioning the authority of the Minister in granting such permission. In that view successor Government was clearly bound by the decision taken by the Minister particularly when it had been acted upon............."

As I have already stated, in the case on hand, the then Government has passed the original order of allotment under Art.166 of the Constitution of India and it is not hit, by the doctrine of ultra vires, In the result, the impugned order of cancellation is set aside and the petition will stand allowed. No costs.

Petition allowed.