S. B. WAD ( 1 ) REDEVELOPMENT and resettlement schemes for slum-dwellers or for displaced persons are a part of the social obligation of a welfare State. They pre-eminently serve public interest. Large public funds are invested in such schemes. In this petition we are concerned with Kingsway Camp Redevelopment and Resettlement Scheme. The tragedy of such schemes is that the benefit is not received by the people for whom a scheme is originally sanctioned as they pass on the benefit to third parties for earning profit. The schemes are abused and exploited by unscrupulous citizens. Mindlessness of the official agencies administering (deliberate or inadvertent) aggravates the problem. Social Welfare State has created new functions and responsibilities for law Courts. In this new role social monitoring by Courts is inevitable. A citizen looks to the Court of law for protection, within the framework of law, not only against the Executive actions but also actions of the unscrupulous acts of the fellow citizens. Public interest needs protection from both. ( 2 ) WE have before us twelve petitioners complaining about denial of possession of the plots in the resettlement colony, Mukherjee Nagar. The Corporation insisted that unless the petitioners gave the physical possession of the old one-room tenements in Kingsway Camp, they will not be given possession of a plot in the resettlement colony. The petitioners complain of discrimination and violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the first phase of the resettlement scheme plots were allotted to about 800 persons staying in the old barracks of Kingsway Camp. In total disregard of the scheme and the individual agreement, they refused to give e possession of the Kingsway Camp tenements. Under the scheme the allottees were permitted to stay in Kingsway Camp for one year, that is the period within which they were to construct a house in the resettlement colony. The allottees sold, assigned or transferred their tenements to third parties after getting the possession of the plots in the resettlement colony. The complaint of the petitioners is that in spite of these abuses by the earlier batch of the allottees the Corporation should not deny them immediate possession. In other words the equality is claimed with the first batch of allottees in matters of making private gains at the cost of the public scheme. ( 3 ) LET us now note some further details of the Scheme. In other words the equality is claimed with the first batch of allottees in matters of making private gains at the cost of the public scheme. ( 3 ) LET us now note some further details of the Scheme. The Scheme for redevelopment and resettlement of the Kingsway Camp residents was mooted in 1960. There were about 2700 families of displaced persons living in a single room tenements. There were about 700 families living in the old military barracks in Hudson Lines and Out-ram Lines of Kingsway Camp. On the survey of the area it was found that the Kingsway Camp area was deficit in civic services such as drains, roads, street lighting, water supply and the area was being turned into a slum. A scheme was then worked out between the Municipal Corporation and the Central Government and it was decided that the Kingsway Camp should be declared a slum and slum clearance area. After clearance of the slum and re-development, some of the occupants were to be housed in the Kingsway Camp itself. The other part of the Scheme was to acquire 173 acres of land near Dakha Village. On part of the acquired land, tenements were to be constructed and they were to be allotted to the displaced persons on subsidised basis. For the 700 families staying in the old military barracks the Scheme was to give them open plots at concessional rates for construction of houses by them. We are here concerned with this part of the Scheme relating to allotment of plots for house sites to 700 families living in the old military barracks of the Kingsway Camp. The land was duly acquired and the Kingsway Camp was declared as a slum area under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The Rehabilitation Department sanctioned Rs. 180 lacs for the entire Scheme. The administration of the Scheme was left to the Corporation. For some time the Scheme was being administered by the D. D. A. but at the relevant time the administration had reverted to the Corporation. The plots were to be allotted on the terms and conditions prescribed in the agreement and lease deed which the allottees were required to enter into with the Corporation. ( 4 ) THE case of the respondents is that with the bitter experience of the first batch of the allottees the policy was required to be changed. The plots were to be allotted on the terms and conditions prescribed in the agreement and lease deed which the allottees were required to enter into with the Corporation. ( 4 ) THE case of the respondents is that with the bitter experience of the first batch of the allottees the policy was required to be changed. The insistence of vacating the possession as a condition precedent for giving the possession in Mukherjee Nagar was in public interest. It was also stated that the petitioners had also indulged in the same abuse of the Scheme by sale, assignment or transfer of the tenements in Kingsway Camp. I therefore, directed the petitioners to file an affidavit to disclose as to when and how they became the owners of the tenements in Kingsway Camp. I also directed them to state whether they were in actual occupation of the tenements in Kingsway Camp and if not who were in actual occupation and who inducted third parties. The information disclosed in the affidavit is quite revealing. None of the petitioners are the original occupants of the Kingsway Camp when the Scheme was sanctioned. They have purchased the tenements in Kingsway Camp after 1977, that is, about the time when the first batch of allottees was given possession of the plots in Mukherjee Nagar. So also none of the petitioners were actually staying in the tenements in Kingsway Camp at the time of the filing of the writ petition. After the purchase of the tenements they had either allowed the vendors to continue to stay in the tenements or had inducted other persons in the tenements. It appears from the affidavits that the vendors were themselves not the original occupants. The original occupants, it seems, had also collected the sums equal to compensation payable under the Slum Clearance Act and sold their tenements to third parties. It is not clear how many times the tenements have changed hands from 1960 till the petition was filed. ( 5 ) PARA. 8 of the Scheme stated: "development plots will be sold to the existing owners in the Kingsway Camp area on a no profit no loss basis and the prices of the plots will be recovered by the Corporation. The Corporation will then take over the existing tenements from the allottees of plots at the price paid by them to the Rehabitation Ministry less depreciation. The Corporation will then take over the existing tenements from the allottees of plots at the price paid by them to the Rehabitation Ministry less depreciation. The tenements owned by persons to whom plots in the newly developed area will be sold will be surrendered to the Corporation as indicated above. "the standard form agreement provided for the obligation of an allottee to vacate the tenement in the Kingsway Camp as a consideration for plot in Mukherjee Nagar. Two clauses of the agreement may now be noted: "clause 3 of the agreement: And whereas the above named allottee, who is in occupation of Quarter No. :. . . . . . . . in Outram Lines, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp Area has agreed to surrender possession of the aforesaid quarter to the Corporation inconsideration of the allotment and delivery of possession to him of a plot of land measuring 160 sq. yards in the area of village Dhaka bearing plot No. . . . . . . . . which belongs to and has been developed into a residential colony by the Corporation for the purpose of rehabilitating the lawful occupants of the Kingsway Camp area. Clause 6: "that the allottee shall construct a substantial building for residential use only over the plot within ? period of 12 months from the date hereof. "relying on these clauses of the agreement the petitioners contend that the obligation to surrender tenements in Kingsway Camp area arises after the construction of the houses by them in Mukherjee Nagar and not before. They contend that it was, therefore, necessary that the possession of the plots in Mukherjes Nagar should be delivered to them immediately. They also state that they would surrender their tenements after twelve months from the handing over of possession to them. They have also stated in their affidavits that the Corporation was free to take possession directly from the actual occupants of the tenements after the said period. The snag is that after making the profits and passing o the possession to third parties the petitioners want to leave the burden of eviction of the actual occupants, on the Corporation. They have also stated in their affidavits that the Corporation was free to take possession directly from the actual occupants of the tenements after the said period. The snag is that after making the profits and passing o the possession to third parties the petitioners want to leave the burden of eviction of the actual occupants, on the Corporation. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the petitioners argues: (1) that the Scheme was the statutory scheme and the Mandamus would lie for enforcement of obligations arising out of the said Scheme; (2) that the Corporation be estopped, on the principle of promissory estoppel from withholding the possession from the petitioners. They submit that the entire amount of premium has been paid by them or by their predecessor in title. Some of the petitioners have also entered into an agreement pursuant to the Scheme. (3) The Corporation cannot discriminate between the petitioners and the allottees of the first batch to whom the possession of the plots was given before surrendering the tenements in Kings way Camp. The action of the Corporation is in breach of Art. 14 of the Constitution ( 7 ) THE counsel for the respondent submits that the Scheme is not a statutory Scheme. To my mind the question whether the Scheme is statutory or not does not have any bearing, on the grievance of the petitioners and the reliefs claimed by them. What the petitioners want is the immediate possession of the plots without surrendering their tenements in the Kingsway Camp. They say they will surrender the tenements after twelve months of the handing over of the possession of the plots and the construction of the houses on the said plots in Mukherjee Nagar. A plain reading of the Schemshows that there is no such right in the petitioners nor does it create such an obligation on the Corporation. The alleged term of the construction of the houses within twelve months on the allotted plot and the simultaneous handing over of the tenements in Kingsway Camp is not the term of the Scheme but of the agreement. There is no agreement entered into with most of the petitioners. Even assuming that there is such an agreement the said obligation would only be a contractual obligation. There is no agreement entered into with most of the petitioners. Even assuming that there is such an agreement the said obligation would only be a contractual obligation. At the most it would be a breach of contract by the Corporation but the petitioners cannot enforce a term of the contract by remedy of writ petition. ( 8 ) THE petitioners cannot invoke doctrine of promissory estoppel. No estoppel can be claimed against a statute or a statutory obligation. The petitioners case is that the Scheme is a statutory scheme. If it is so the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot come to their help. The argument in terms of promissory estoppel is totally misconceived. For the application of the principle of promissory estoppel it is necessary that the petitioners should change their position as a direct result or consequence of a representation made by the other party. The doctrine does not require that the petitioners should suffer any monetary loss or prejudice. Purchases of the tenements in the Kingsway Camp by the petitioners after 1977 is not pursuant to any representation by the Corporation. It is plain business and profiteering. Being an equitable doctrine the petitioners must convincingly demonstrate that their hands are clean. The facts are otherwise. The Scheme was meant for the original bona fide occupants of the Kingsway Camp when the Scheme was prepared. To exploit the scheme for monetary profits by sale and purchase of the tenements is a clear abuse of the scheme. Even after the purchase of the tenements after 1977 none of the petitioners is in physical occupation of the tenements. Their statements in the affidavit that the Corporation should take possession from the third parties further demonstrate their dubious intentions. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. ( 9 ) THE petitioners complaint of discrimination is untenable both in law or equity. I have already rejected the petitioners claim for the equitable relief. In substance the petitioners contention is that they should get an opportunity similar to the allottees of the first batch of not delivering the possession of the tenements in Kingsway Camp within one year after the possession of plots in Mukherjee Nagar was given to them. As stated earlier the alleged claim of the petitioners apparently arises out of a term of the agreement. The allottees of the first batch had acquired possession after entering into an agreement. As stated earlier the alleged claim of the petitioners apparently arises out of a term of the agreement. The allottees of the first batch had acquired possession after entering into an agreement. The petitioners have not entered into an agreement with the Corporation so far. In fact the relief claimed in the writ petition is that the Corporation should be directed to enter into an agreement with the petitioners in model form Annexure b of the writ petition. Unless the Scheme creates a right in them the petitioners cannot claim the equality of treatment in this regard. I have already held that the Scheme does not create any such right. The complaint of discrimination is misconceived and is untenable in law. ( 10 ) ON 3-3-1979 the Municipal Corporation took the decision that in view of the their experience in regard to the first batch of the allottees future possession of the plots should be delivered only when the vacant possession of the tenements in the Kingsway Camp was delivered by the allottees. In spite of it, the Corporation permitted mutations in favour of the new purchasers of the said tenements in Kingsway Camp. On 18-5-1979 the Corporation informed the allottees that the possession would be given to them after payment of all the instalments of the premium without ascertaining whether they were original occupants or not. It is difficult to understand these actions. Is it connivance or carelessness ? It is certainly not in public interest (involving public funds ). ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed with costs. The Rule is discharged.