JUDGMENT D.S. SINHA, J. 1. IN September, 1985 the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad decided to build 27 three storied residential houses in Naseebpur Bakhtiari at Ashok Nagar, Allahabad under ' Mini Middle Income Group. The construction of these houses was decided to be under the ' Self Financing Scheme. On pursuance of this decision, advertisement inviting applications for registration of candidature for the houses was issued. From the averments made in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the said advertisement received poor response and as such in its meeting held on 15th March, 1986 the Allahabad Development Authority decided that the construction of the aforesaid houses be converted from ' Self Financing Scheme ' into 'Hire Purchase Scheme . 2. CONSEQUENTLY an advertisement was issued on behalf of the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad inviting applications for registration of the candidature for allotment of the aforesaid houses on ' Hire Purchase ' basis by 31st July, 1986. The advertisement, inter alia, held out that there would be provision for reservation of flats for the candidates belonging to backward class. According to the petitioners such reservation was to the extent of 15 per cent. The petitioners contend that out of the total flats to be constructed under this scheme 5 flats were to be reserved for the candidates belonging to backward class. The factum of reservation and the percentage thereof has not been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. However, according to the respondents, the number of the flats to be reserved for people belonging to backward class was 4 and 5 as asserted by the petitioners. In response to the above advertisement nearly 70 persons got their candidature registered. The petitioners, who belong to backward class, also applied. Each of the petitioners deposited Rs. 8000/- by way of registration fees. They also enclosed along with their application the requisite certificates testifying the factum of their belonging to backward class. On 25th October, 19s6 the petitioners moved applications to the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Develpment Authority, Allahabad praying for allotment of a ground floor flat under the said scheme. On these applications Sri J. N. Dwivedi, the then Vice Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority by means of his order dated 25th October, 1986 directed the Secretary of Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad to give one flat to each of the petitioners. On these applications Sri J. N. Dwivedi, the then Vice Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority by means of his order dated 25th October, 1986 directed the Secretary of Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad to give one flat to each of the petitioners. The petitioners were then informed that they had to wait for the allotment order which would be issued after the proceedings for allotment were held by drawing lots on 30th January, 1987 in their presence. 3. SUDDENLY on 28th January, 1987 the Allahabad Development Authority purported to issue a notice which was published in the news paper entitled 'Dainik Jagran' notifying that the entire scheme of allotment of aforesaid houses under ' Hire Purchase Scheme' had been cancelled under the orders of the Vice Chairman and further that the Scheme had been re-converted from 'Hire Purchase Scheme' into 'Self Financing Scheme'. This notice further called upon the applicants who had registered their candidature under the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' and had deposited a sum of Rs. 8000/- to deposit a further sum of Rs. 7000/-, making a total of Rs. 15,000/- by 7th February, 1987 and also to give their consent for their candidatures to be considered under the revised. Self Financing Scheme. A photostat copy of the notice dated 28th January, 1987 has been appended to the petition as Annexure IV. 4. THE petitioners are aggrieved by the above action of Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad and have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 28th January, 1987 (Annexure IV to the petition) and for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot one flat to each of the petitioners under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' as directed by Sri J N. Dwivedi, the Vice Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad on 25th October, 1986. We have heard Sri Sakha Ram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and proceeded to decide the petition finally at the stage of admission with their consent. 5. We have heard Sri Sakha Ram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and proceeded to decide the petition finally at the stage of admission with their consent. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the action of the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad in cancelling the entire proceedings for allotment of the houses in question under 'Hire Purchase Scheme', converting the said Scheme into ' Self Financing Scheme ' and declining to allot one flat to each of the petitioners under 'Hire Purchase Scheme ' is bad on the following three grounds: (a) The Vice Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority had no power to convert the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' into ' Self Financing Scheme '; (b) Before the power of cancellation of the proceedings for allotment of the houses under the ' Hire Purchase Scheme ' and converting the said Scheme into ' Self Financing Scheme ' was exercised the petitioners were not given any opportunity which the respondents were bound to give. (c) In any case the respondents having held out a promise to the petitioners to allot to each of them a flat under ' Hire Purchase Scheme ' on the conditions specified and the petitioners having accepted and complied with the terms and conditions set out by the respondents and further the then Vice Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority by means of his order dated 25th October, 1986 having actually ordered the allotment of one flat to each of the petitioners the respondents are estopped from deciding to allot a flat to each of the petitioners on the well settled principle of promissory estoppel. 6. FOR the respondents it was contended that the scheme of allotment of flat under the hire purchase system was converted into self financing system and cash down payment basis in view of the lack of sufficient funds with the Development Authority and the Vice Chairman had every authority to cancel the allotment proceedings under the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' and convert the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' into 'Self Financing Scheme'. It was further contended that Sri J. N. Dwivedi, the then Vice Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority had no authority to pass the order dated 25th October, 1986 directing allotment of flats to the petitioners inasmuch as under rules the allotment could be done by drawing lot alone. It was further contended that Sri J. N. Dwivedi, the then Vice Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority had no authority to pass the order dated 25th October, 1986 directing allotment of flats to the petitioners inasmuch as under rules the allotment could be done by drawing lot alone. In the last it was contended that all except 7 or 8 flats for which applications for allotment were received under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' have already been allotted to the applicants under the 'Self Financing Scheme' and 'Cash-down payment Scheme' and as such no fiat was available for allotment in favour of the petitioners against quota reserved for backward candidates. First of all we propose to deal with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority had no power to convert the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' into 'Self Financing Scheme'. Except a bald statement in paragraph 14 of the supplementary counter-affidavit that the Vice Chairman has full power to change the 'Self Financing Scheme' into 'Hire Purchase Scheme' and vice versa no specific provision of any Statute, Rule or Regulation has been either pleaded by the respondents or has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. From the averments made in the supplementary counter-affidavit it is revealed that the decision to build the residential houses of 'Mini Middle Income Group' under the 'Self Financing Scheme' was taken by the Development Authority Allahabad and a sub-Committee appointed by it, with the concurrence of the Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority Allahabad, in September, 1985. Lateron due to poor response to the said Scheme Allahabad Development Authority again in its meeting dated 15th March, 1986 decided to convert the 'Self Financing Scheme' into 'Hire Purchase Scheme'. Decision with regard to a particular Scheme is a policy decision and as such it was taken by the Allahabad Development Authority and the Sub-Committee appointed by it with the concurrence of the Chairman. Obviously such a decision could never be taken by the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority alone. Decision with regard to a particular Scheme is a policy decision and as such it was taken by the Allahabad Development Authority and the Sub-Committee appointed by it with the concurrence of the Chairman. Obviously such a decision could never be taken by the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority alone. In absence of any specific provision and on the averments made in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents there is no escape from the conclusion that it was only Allahabad Development Authority or the Committee appointed by it in that behalf and with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority alone could convert the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' into 'Self Financing Scheme'. From the notice impugned in the writ petition (Annexure 4) it transpires that the notice for the allotment of flats under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' in response whereof the petitioners had applied for allotment of flats had been cancelled under the orders of the Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority and the conversion of "Hire Purchase Scheme' into 'Self Financing Scheme' was also done under the orders of the Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority. The Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority had clearly no authority to either cancel the allotment proceedings under the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' or to convert the Hire Purchase Scheme' into 'Self Financing Scheme'. 7. THE second submission on behalf of the petitioners also cannot be said to be without force. On their making proper application and fully complying with the terms and conditions laid down by the Allahabad Development Authority and passing of the order dared 25th October, 1985 by the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority directing its Secretary to give one flat to each of the petitioners, the petitioners acquired legitimate interest in the proceedings for allotment of the flats under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' and such an interest of the petitioners could be affected only after giving them reasonable opportunity to defend. Admittedly, before cancellation of the proceedings for allotment of the houses under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' and converting the said Scheme into 'Self Financing Scheme' the petitioners were not given any opportunity to defend their interest created in the matter and that being so the impugned action of the respondents regarding the cancellation of proceedings for allotment of the houses under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' and conversion of the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' into Self Financing Scheme' becomes bad for violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 8. THE third ground of the petitioners with regard to the promissory estoppel also has substantial merit. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioners had applied for allotment of flats; their applications were in order; and that they had complied with all the terms and conditions laid down by the Allahabad Development Authority for allotment of a flat under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' floated by it by means of the advertisement a photo-stat copy whereof has been annexed to the petition as Annexure 1. To be precise, the petitioners did every thing which they were required to do by the Allahabad Development Authority for getting a flat under the 'Hire Purchase Scheme' and further that the then Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority bad actually passed an order on the applications of the petitioners directing the Secretary of the Allahabad Development Authority to give one flat to each of the petitioners. Thus there remained nothing to be done by the petitioners except to wait for getting a flat. THE respondents, having held out a promise to the applicants, including the petitioners, to give a flat under Hire Purchase Scheme' on compliance with the conditions specified and the petitioners having accepted and complied with the terms and conditions set out by them and further having passed the order dated 25th October, 1986 directing allotment of one flat to each of the petitioners, are estopped from denying allotment of a flat to each of the petitioners. They cannot be permitted to wriggle out of and decline to honour the promise held out by them to the petitioners. They are, in fact, estopped from doing so. They cannot be permitted to wriggle out of and decline to honour the promise held out by them to the petitioners. They are, in fact, estopped from doing so. So far as the contention of the respondents that the change of the nature of Scheme for allotment of flats had to be resorted to for the lack of sufficient funds with the Development Authority is concerned, there is no material on the record to hold that there was actually lack of sufficient funds with the Development Authority as alleged. In any case, the lack of funds cannot justify the action of the Allahabad Development Authority from going back with the promise which it held out in respect of allotment of flats in the given Scheme on compliance with the conditions specified by it. 9. WITH regard to the other contention on behalf of the respondents to the effect that Sri J. N. Dwivedi, the then Vice-Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority had no authority to pass the order dated 25th October, 1986 directing allotment of flats to the petitioners inasmuch as under rules the allotment could be done by drawing lot alone, it is to be noticed that there is nothing on record to show that the authority of Sri J. N. Dwivedi was ever disputed by the respondents or any step to recall or nullify the effect of his order dated 25th October, 1986 was ever taken by or on behalf of the Allahabad Development Authority. Besides this nothing has been brought to our notice to justify the contention that the allotment could be done by drawing lot alone. It is further significant to note that the advertisement in response to which the petitioner had applied for allotment of flats did not notify that the procedure for allotment of flats would be by drawing lot alone. 10. COMING to the last contention on behalf of the respondents regarding availability of flats for allotment in favour of the petitioners, we are of the opinion that this contention cannot be justified on facts. It is not disputed that 15% reservation in favour of the applicants belonging to back ward class was envisaged by the respondents and accordingly 5 flats, according to the petitioners and 4 flats according to the respondents, were to be reserved for the candidates of back- sards class. It is not disputed that 15% reservation in favour of the applicants belonging to back ward class was envisaged by the respondents and accordingly 5 flats, according to the petitioners and 4 flats according to the respondents, were to be reserved for the candidates of back- sards class. Assuming the figure of 4 flats as given by the respondents themselves in the counter-affidavit to be correct, the petitioners can be accommodated in two of such flats reserved for the candidates of backward class. It has not been disputed that out of 27 flats constructed under the Scheme under reference no flat has yet been allotted to any applicant belonging to backward class. In these circumstances the contention of the respondents that no flat is available for allotment to the petitioners cannot be upheld. In view of the aforesaid discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice published in Dainik Jagran dated 28th January, 1987, a photo-stat copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the petition, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed and the respondents are commanded to allot and give one flat to each of the petitioners, under 'Hire Purchase Scheme' for which they had applied in response to the notice, a photo-stat copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition, within a month of the production of a certified copy of this judgment before them. Petition allowed.