Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process.
SC Explained: Where the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation Applies
New Delhi (ABC Live India): The Supreme Court of India on November 26, 2021 in case titled M/s. Sai Baba Sales Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors explained where the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation Applies.
The Para 20 of the judgment authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy explains how the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation Applies in this case says that the principle of the rule of law as explained in De Smith’s Judicial Review, such as, Regularity, Predictability and Certainty in Government’s dealings with the Public, must operate in the present matter. The Project Proponent can legitimately expect a certain degree of stability in the manner in which environmental regime is set and how the applications are processed. The actions of the authorities are expected to adhere to the prevalent norms only, without the element of uncertainty for the executed project.
21. In this para the Supreme Court referred the seminal case on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation titled Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu, where Lord Fraser speaking for the Privy Council, appositely observed thus,“...when a public authority has promised to follow acertain procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty.”
22.
This Court in
Sethi Auto
Service Station vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors3,
speaking through Justice D.K. Jain, has cited other opinions and
elucidated on the concept of legitimate expectation, in the following manner,
“24. The
House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions & Ors.Vs. Minister for
the Civil Service, a locus classicus on the subject, wherein for the
first time an attempt was made to give a comprehensive definition to the
principle of legitimate expectation. Enunciating the basic
principles relating
to legitimate expectation, Lord Diplock observed that for a legitimate
expectation to arise, the decision of the administrative authority
must affect such person either(a)**** **** **** **** ****
(b)by depriving him of some
benefit or advantage which either: (i) he has in the past been permitted
by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to
be permitted to continue to do until some rational ground for
withdrawing it has been communicated to him and he has been given an
opportunity to comment thereon or(ii)he has received assurance from the decision maker
that they will not be withdrawn without first giving him an opportunity
of advancing reasons for contending that they should be withdrawn.” (Emphasis
supplied)
23.The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is further explained in Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries where for a Three-Judge Bench of this Court Justice J.S. Verma observed thus: -"The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent."
24. The more compelling public interest might possibly diminish the degree of legitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be found. In the present matter the appellant has acted on the EC and made substantial investments. They cannot be pushed to a precipice and be made to fall. Doing so would be inequitable particularly when, the appellant has scrupulously adhered to the applicable legal framework during the concerned period. Moreover, third-party interests have also cropped up in the interregnum.
Read the detail judgment Click
Also, Read