P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.
1. The appellants are the writ petitioners in W.P. 10647/06 where in by proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 12-7-06 the representation for sale of the quarters under their occupation was rejected and a direction given to vacate the respective quarters within 15 days from 12-7-06, was confirmed by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st June, 2008.
2. In brief, the petitioners are the retired Group-D employees of Public Works Department and they were allotted individual quarters for their occupation during their service, but even after superannuation they continued in occupation of the respective quarters and represented to the Government to convey the respective quarters on lease-cum-sale basis. Since the Government proposed to evict the petitioners from the respective quarters in July 1997, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 24482-86/1997 and 20499/1997 and this Court by an order dated 22nd July, 1999 in W.P. No. 20499/97 directed the Government of Karnataka to consider the representation of the petitioners to convey the property in their favour on lease-cum-sale basis on various schemes in accordance with law. Thereafter the Government by proceedings dated 12.7.2006 rejected their claim Pursuant to the above directions of this Court dated 22nd July, 1999 the petitioners made further representation staking claim for conveyance of their respective quarters on lease-cum-sale basis based on the proceedings of the Government of Mysore dated 16.6.1964.
3. By proceedings dated 16-6-64 the Government of Mysore considered the request of 778 tenaments. In the said proceedings dated 16-6-64 the Government took a policy decision as to the disposal of 778 tenaments which were constructed for the industrial workers in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Area under the subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme after the States' re-organisation. The PWD took the control of the same after re-organisation and the responsibility of maintenance and collection of rent from the occupants were thus transferred to the PWD. The Government while considering the request of the then occupants took into consideration the condition of the quarters which were in a poor and dilapidated state; the hard circumstances under which the NGOs had to occupy these quarters viz. there was no other alternative accomodation elsewhere in Gulbarga, took the policy decision to sell those tenaments as hereunder:
After examining the matter thoroughly in the light of the reports covered and agreeing with the conclusions arrived at the above mentioned meeting it is hereby directed as follows in the letter of disposal of these tenements:
(i) The 53 S.R.T Quarters reported to have been condoned and found unfit for habitation should be sanctioned as they are, in their existing, shape and conditions.
(ii) 140 tenements occupied by the Industrial Labour mostly belonging to M.S.K Mills, including the 125 tenements occupied in and unauthorized manner may be disposed of to the occupants (except these private persons who are not employers of M.S.K. Mills) on a basis of the M.S.K Mills take the responsibility lor payment of cost of these houses inclusive of arrears of rent from the date of occupation and interest thereon as will be fixed later.
(iii) About 100 houses (out of remaining 160 houses) which are already under occupation by the employees of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation may be sold to them.
(iv) The remaining single room tenements may be disposed of the N.G.Os after evicting the private persons, if any.
(v) All the 150 double room tenements may be sold to the Government servants on No-profit and No-Loss basis at the cost price plus interest payable by the State Government to the Government of India.
(vi) Tenements occupied by the Principal I.R.C and District Social Welfare Officer, for hostel purposes and also the house occupied by the clerical establishment of the M.S.K Mills, Gulbarga, Gulbarga may be get vacated by legal eviction if necessary at the time of sale.
4. Placing reliance on the said proceedings dated 16-6-64 the petitioners, on the strength of the directions of this court dated 22-7-99, requested the Government to convey the respective quarters to them on lease-cum-sale basis. But the Government by proceedings dated 12-7-2006 rejected the request and directed them to pay the entire arrears of rents as the petitioners are occupying the quarters even without paying the rents contrary to the Rules and Regulations. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 12-7-06 the petitioners filed the writ petition.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, by order dated 3-6-08 held that the petitioners have no legal right to ask the respondent to sell the PWD quarters in their favour on lease-cum-sale basis because they are continuing in occupation of their respective quarters even after superannuation and their occupation is, therefore, unauthorised and that they have not established violation of any statutory right in their favour. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge the petitioners have preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends :
(i) that in view of the earlier decision of the Government dated 16.6.1964 (page 99), the petitioner also have a legal right to claim for sale of the respective quarters and refusal to consider such right amounts to discrimination attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) that right for shelter is an in built right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to lead a dignified life and refusal of the same, particularly when the petitioners are similarly placed to those who are governed under the proceedings of the Government dated 16.6.1964 amounts to discriminatory and arbitrary attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and
(iii) in any event the petitioners have a legitimate expectation for the sale of the respective quarters in their favour in view of the earlier policy decision of the Government dated 16.6.1964.
7. On behalf of the Government, the learned Government Advocate reiterated his submissions made before the learned single Judge, attempts to sustain the impugned proceedings.
8. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions on both sides.
9. Upon the rival contentions made, the following issues are raised for our consideration:
(A) Whether the petitioners have any right in law to stake the claim for sale of respective quarters, which are admittedly owned by the Government?
(B) Whether the policy decision taken by the Government in the proceedings dated 16.6.1964 would automatically be binding on the respondents-Government even in the instant case or the policy decision taken would by itself confer any right on the petitioners to stake such claim?
(C) Whether the policy decision of the Government in the proceedings dated 16.6.1964 would automatically bind on the Government even in the instant case where there is no violation to Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India as contended by the petitioners?
(D) Whether the petitioners have got any legitimate. Expectation for sale of the respective quarters as claimed and prayed for?
(E) To what relief they are entitled to?
10. Since the above issues (A to E) referred to above are interrelated we propose to deal all of them comprehensively. It is true the Government had taken a policy decision in the proceedings dated 16.6.1964 to dispose of the tenements as referred to above. But, the circumstances under which the Government had taken a policy decision to dispose of those tenements were carved out in the very same proceedings because those buildings were originally constructed for the industrial workers under the Housing Scheme and after the State reorganisation, the NGOs had to occupy those quarters on hired basis as there was no alternative accommodation elsewhere in Gulbarga and that the conditions of the buildings were very poor and dilapidated and that after the State reorganisation the P.W.D. Department took over the control over the properties as it was difficult for the PWD Department to maintain the same. But, these are not the circumstances in the instant case nor the petitioners occupied these quarters in a situation where it was not possible for them to have any other accommodation nor the present buildings are in such a poor and dilapidated condition nor it is difficult for the Public Works Department to maintain these quarters now. On the other hand, the petitioners were allotted these quarters only by virtue of their continuation in service and they are not entitled to continue in respect of the quarters even after their superannuation in the year 1995-96 and that they have stayed in the respective quarters even without paying the rent and for all these reasons they have not approached this Court with clean hands.
11. Once when there is no dispute that the Government alone is the owner of the land and the superstructure of the quarters and the occupants are staying in them only in their capacity as employees of the department on rental basis, they are not entitled to continue in occupation of the same beyond their superannuation. On attainment of superannuation they are liable to vacate the quarters and in any event there is no subsisting right for the petitioners' to continue in occupation of the respective quarters. The policy decision taken by the Government on 16-6-64 in any event cannot be construed as similar to that of the petitioners.
12. That apart it is a settled law that the Government is entitled to make a pragmatic adjustments and a policy decision which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances and the court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or wiser or more sientific or logical, vide Netai Bag v. State of W.B. (2000) SCC 262. Nor the court can compel the Government to apply a policy decision which is not applicable to a different situation. Therefore Article 12 and 21 are not attracted to the case of the petitioners as contended.
13. The Apex Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd) v. Union of India : (2002)ILLJ550SC held that unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court; it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy Constitution of India be evolved, nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.
14. In view of the above well settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, a direction cannot be issued directing the Corporation to sell the tenements quarters in favour of the petitioners-appellants as the Government itself has taken a policy decision not to sell the impugned quarters to the petitioners which is also a policy decision with which the court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. We also reject the contention of the petitioners as to their legitimate expectation for sale of the respective quarters. A reference to the decision of Apex Court in Bannariamman Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer : (2004)192CTR(SC)492 , would be appropriate:
8. A person may have a 'legitimate expectation' of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in the developing law of judicial review.... It is generally agreed that 'legitimate expectation' gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then the decision-marker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation : AIR1994SC988 .
9. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
16. Under the facto and circumstances of the case the State Government is entitled to take a totally different policy decision viz., not to sell the property to the petitioner on account of over-riding public interest and in which case the legitimate expectation as claimed by the petitioner as far as the concept of arbitrariness attracting Article 14 of file Constitution of India fails. On the other hand we are satisfied that there is a non-arbitrariness which is an essence and heart-beat of fair-play and a hand-maid of role of law in the policy decision token by the Government for not setting the quarters to the petitioners.
17. It, therefore, follows file petitioners neither have any right nor there is any right to seek for safe of the property. Nor these is any obligation on the part of the State to sell the property, nor is there any violation of the rules and regulations in taking the policy decision and nor there is any similarity in the situation that exists in the present case with that which existed in 1964 for the petitioner to claim a benefit under the said proceedings dated 16-6-64, in the absence of any of these essential concomitants the petitioners cannot complain of any violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India so as to entail our interference in the matter.
18. Consequently the petitioners are not entitled to stake their claim for lease-cum-sale of the quarters in their occupation as it is a well-settled that hi order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. The writ appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.