Skip to main content

Legitimate expectation: Public vs Private Law

In Seema Agency Vs. Union of India and Ors., High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that "Salus populi est suprema lex: regard for the public welfare is the highest law". This principle is based on the implied agreement of every member of society that his own individual welfare shall in cases of necessity yield to that of community. His property, liberty and life shall under certain circumstances be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good. This legal maxim has been followed by Supreme Court in the matter of Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others and it has been held that, in public law in certain situations, relief to the parties aggrieved by action or promises of public authorities can be granted on the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" but when grant of such relief is likely to harm larger public interest, the doctrine cannot be allowed to be pressed into service. 

In the matter of Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., the Supreme Court has held that, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is 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. Where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. Legitimate expectation being less than a right operates in the field of public and not private law and to some extent such legitimate expectation ought to be protected though not guaranteed. 

In the matter of Madras City Wine Merchants' Assn. v. State of T.N., the Supreme Court has held that, legitimate expectation may arise-(a) if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or (b) because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue; (c) such an expectation must be reasonable. However, if there is a change in policy or in public interest the position is altered by a rule or legislation, no question of legitimate expectation would arise. 

In the instant case, the subject shop was given by contract agreement to the Petitioner for a period of three years and was extended for a further period of six months, but thereafter, the Government has taken a policy decision to open Jan Aushadhi Outlet for providing generic medicines to poor and down trodden people, in all the six AIIMS premises which was conveyed through the memo dated 12th June, 2017 to the Respondent AIIMS and thus, the competent authority of the Respondent taken a decision not to renew the contract agreement for further period and decided to open the Jan Aushadhi Outlet in the said premises, in larger public interest, that too through M/s. HLL Lifecare Limited which is a Government of India enterprise. The Government/respondents are free to take a decision in this regard particularly when the opening of Jan Aushadhi Outlet has become imperative for them. There are stronger reasons not to protect the claim of legitimate expectation on behalf of the Petitioner as the decision has been taken in overriding public interest particularly keeping in view the provision for providing generic medicines to the weaker and down trodden sections of the society in more subsidised rates which is one of the policy decisions of the Government of India and to implement the same, the shop/outlet in question is required to be established by the respondents. Therefore, no question of legitimate expectation would arise and such a doctrine cannot be pressed into service competently and also for the reason as the petitioner's performance was not found satisfactory. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more