SEM-III PROJECT

NAME OF THE STUDENT: SUJEET KATELIYA

ROLL NUMBER: 23-A
NAME OF THE SUBJECT : ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
TOPIC: DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LEGITIMATE
EXPECTATION, PROMISSORY ESTOPPELS &
MERE EXPECTATION
SUBMITTED TO : PROF. NAVANITHA WARRIOR, PROF.
SNEHA ANIL KUMAR
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this golden opportunity to express my gratitude to one and all without whom
it would not be possible to complete the project. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to
Prof. Navanitha Warrior and Prof. Sneha Anil Kumar for guiding me throughout the project.
I also feel thankful and express my gratitude to our Principal Dr. Priya J. Shah for giving me
this opportunity. I Would also like to thank my college
SVKM’S Jitendra Chauhan college of law and the University of Mumbai to allow me to enhance
my skills and get an amazing experience. All the respected teachers provided me with their vital
support and guidance because of which I could make this project. This project helped me find my
capabilities and enhanced my research skills. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my
family for their continuous support and encouragement.

SUJEET TULSIBHAI KATELIYA

23-A

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. PARTICULARS PAGE

NO NO
1) Introduction 3-4

2) Origin & Evolution 5-7

3) Difference between Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation 8

4) Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation 9-11

5) Conclusion 12

6) Bibliography 13

2|Page
 INTRODUCTION
THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

“A man should keep his words. All the more so when the promise is not a bare promise but is made
with the intention that the other party should act upon it”

Administrative Law is overarching in nature and it is difficult to categorize its multiple functions
in watertight compartments. Consequently, multiple principles and doctrines have been formulated
to ensure proper functioning of the administration.

The doctrine of ‘Legitimate Expectations’ is one amongst several tools incorporated by the Court
to review administrative action. This doctrine pertains to the relationship between an individual
and a public authority. According to this doctrine, the public authority can be made accountable in
lieu of a ‘legitimate expectation’. A person may have a reasonable or legitimate expectation of
being treated in a certain way by the administrative authorities owing to some consistent practice
in the past or an express promise made by the concerned authority.1

This principle can be related to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which binds the State to
maintain equality in its interactions with its citizens and to act fairly, reasonably and non-
arbitrarily.2 This obligation, in turn, raises the “legitimate expectation” of the citizens to be treated
fairly by the State and its instrumentalities. The State has to make every decision after giving due
consideration to the “legitimate expectation” of all the stakeholders who might be affected by the
decision.3 However, it was made clear that the “legitimate expectation” may not be a distinct
enforceable right, but it is only the non-consideration of it that makes the decision arbitrary and
creates certain rights to approach the equitable courts. In Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary, the
Supreme Court held that only the “legitimate expectation” of a party cannot be a right in itself and
that some violation of Article 14 has to be shown.

THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made
without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies

1
https://blog.ipleaders.in/legitimate-expectaion/

3|Page
on that promise to his subsequent detriment. Promissory estoppel is intended to stop the promisor
from arguing that an underlying promise should not be legally upheld or enforced.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is part of the law in the United States and other countries,
although the precise legal requirements for promissory estoppel vary not only between countries,
but also between different jurisdictions, such as states, within the same country.

Promissory estoppel serves to enable an injured party to recover on a promise. There are common
legally required elements for a person to make a claim for promissory estoppel: a promisor, a
promisee, and a detriment that the promisee has suffered. An additional requirement is that the
person making the claim the promise must have reasonably relied on the promise. In other words,
the promise was one that a reasonable person would ordinarily rely on.

Another requirement further qualifies the required detriment component; the promisee must have
suffered an actual substantial detriment in the form of an economic loss that results from the
promisor failing to deliver on their promise. Finally, promissory estoppel is usually only granted
if a court determines that enforcing the promise is essentially the only means by which injustice to
the promisee can be rectified.

An example of promissory estoppel might be applied in a case where an employer makes an oral
promise to an employee to pay the employee a specified monthly or annual amount of money
throughout the full duration of the employee's retirement. If the employee then subsequently retires
based on a reliance on the employer's promise, the employer could be legally estopped from not
delivering on his promise to make the specified retirement payments.

4|Page
 ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION

DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

The doctrine is not a specific legal right engraved in a particular statute or rule book. The first
time, an attempt was made to establish the principles of the doctrine were in the case of Council
of Civil Service Unions and Others v. Minister for the Civil Service ([1985] AC 374), that the
decision by the public authority should affect the person such that-

• His rights or obligations are altered, which are enforceable by or against him
• He is deprived of some benefit or advantage which he had been permitted by the authorizing
body in the past and which he could have legitimately expected to enjoy until a valid ground
for withdrawal of the same was communicated to him or he had been assured by the decision
making body that such a benefit or advantage would not be withdrawn until him being given
an opportunity of contending reasons as to why they were withdrawn.

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was firstly discussed in the Indian arena in the case of
State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai ((1988) 4 SCC 669). Herein a sanction was issued for
the respondents to open a new aided school and to upgrade the existing schools, however, an Order
was issued 15 days later to keep the previous sanction in abeyance. This Order was challenged by
the respondents in lieu of violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court ruled that
the sanction had entitled the respondents with legitimate expectation and the second order violated
principles of natural justice.

In another Supreme Court case, Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India
((1992) 4 SCC 477), wherein the new criteria for allotment of land was challenged. In the original
policy, the seniority with regards to allotment was decided on the basis of date of registration.
Subsequently, a change in policy was made in 1990, changing the criteria for deciding seniority
based on the date of approval of the final list.

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the Housing Societies were entitled to ‘legitimate
expectation’ owing to the continuous and consistent practice in the past in matters of allotment.
Court further elucidates on the principle stating that presence of ‘legitimate expectations’ can have
different outcomes and one such outcome is that the authority should not fail ‘legitimate
expectation’ unless there is some justifiable public policy reason for the same.

5|Page
The Supreme Court elaborated on the nature of the doctrine of legitimate expectations in Food
Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries ((1993) 1. S.C.C. 71), that the duty
to act fairly on part of public authorities, entitles every citizen to have legitimate expectation to be
treated in a fair manner and it is imperative to give due importance to such an expectation in order
to satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness in state action or otherwise it may amount to abuse
of power. The Court further made a remarkable point that such a reasonable or legitimate
expectation may not be a directly enforceable legal right but failure in taking it into account may
deem a decision arbitrary. To decide whether an expectation is a legitimate one is contextual and
has to be decided on a case by case basis.2

In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation ((1993) 3 SCC 499), the Supreme
Court has dealt with the doctrine in great detail, starting with the explanation of the scope of the
doctrine in Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I (I) 151 which says that a person
can have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain fashion even though he doesn’t have
a legal right to receive the same.

DOCTRINE OF PRMISSORY ESTOPPEL

Estoppel talks about rules of equity, fairness and justice. And in recent years that rule expanded its
dimensions. One of the classifications of estoppel was Promissory Estoppel that was
acknowledged by courts in the country. In 1880, the concept of Promissory Estoppel was originated
in the Indian Law System through Ganges Manufacturing Co. V. Soorajmull, when Calcutta
High Court upheld that a promise without consideration was enforceable merely on the basis of
interest and reliance. In 1892, judgement of Calcutta High Court was not followed as Madras High
Court dismissed the basis of interest and reliance and returned back to the traditional approach that
consideration is necessary in Schoulank V. Mulhunaryan and examined the application of
estoppel under provisions of Indian Evidence Act.

During the developing period, the promisee cannot appeal the doctrine of promissory estoppel
unless any damage was suffered by the party. One thing that is mandatory is the other party’s
reliance on the promise and acting upon the assurance given by the promisor. The only crucial

2
https://blog.ipleaders.in/legitimate-expectaion/

6|Page
requirement of this doctrine is the change of position by the party. The doctrine of promissory
estoppel found its complete explanation in the case of Union of India V. Anglo Afghan Agencies.

Earlier promissory estoppel was never applied against the government. But with time, this case
changed the position. To uplift export of woollen garments to Afghanistan, the government made
a declaration about specific modifications regarding the import of specific raw materials. But later,
only limited modifications were permitted, not all modifications as promised were permitted. The
government was held liable by the Supreme Court as they were stopped by its promise. So, the
promissory estoppel was applied against the Government by the courts. The doctrine of promissory
estoppel was fully accepted in India devoid of notion of consideration and made it familiar as a
reason of action to the parties to whom the promise was made.3

3
https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-promissory-estoppel/

7|Page
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION AND PROMISSORY
ESTOPPEL

LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION PRMISSORY EXPECTATION

This doctrine is broader as it takes into account This doctrine considers only the promises
not only the promises but also the practices of made by a party (both government and private
the officials of the Government. Hence, a parties).
promise is always not necessary in this case.

It is a public law remedy because it ensures that It is a private law remedy as it seeks to enforce
governmental bodies are fair and non-arbitrary promises made by one party to another.
in their dealing with citizens.

It is not necessary for a person to show that he It is required to be shown that the promisee has
has changed his position or suffered detriment acted upon the promise irrespective of the
in order to claim to have legitimate losses suffered.
expectation.

It is not a cause of action in itself as certain In this case, a mere violation of promise and
resulting violations of Article 14 have to be subsequent action upon the promise would
shown. itself constitute a cause of action.4

4
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/02/21/difference-between-promissory-estoppel-and-legitimate-
explanation-explainer/

8|Page
 PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

There is a close similarity between the public law doctrine of legitimate expectations and the
private law doctrine of estoppel. Both are parts of laws of equity. The concept behind the each
doctrine involves a clear and unambiguous promise, undertaking or representation (in words or
conduct) made by a public authority based on past practices which the claimant has relied on and
can reasonably expect to continue.

According to Legitimate, or reasonable expectation, an expectation may arise either from an

express promise given on behalf of the public authority or from the existence of a regular practice
which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue.

In the Court of Appeal of Botswana, in Mothusi v. Attorney General, Amissah, J.P., observed:

The concept of legitimate expectation has developed in the administrative procedures to protect
those who have been led either by contract or practice to expect a certain course of action in cases
where the expected course of action has been altered without giving them a right to make
representations. Thus, if an authority has made a promise as to the manner of exercise of discretion,
the authority ought to be held to that promise.

This has also been supported by Lord Roskill in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for
the Civil Service. It was observed in that case that for legitimate expectation to arise, the decisions
of the administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or
advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision make to enjoy and
which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been
communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it and which he has been given an
opportunity to comment or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision maker that they will
not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reason for contending that
they should not be withdrawn.

In Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Quinn, besides establishing the procedural rights,
there is another principle upon which the courts have upheld a claim of legitimate expectation is
the existence of some representation which creates an estoppel.

9|Page
The principle of legitimate expectation has relevance with the expectations created by promises
and policy rules. It becomes the duty of public authority to act fairly and non-arbitrarily to meet
the expectation it should be reasonable logical, valid and should not overriding public interest and
power of authorities.

However, there are significant differences between these two doctrines. Legitimate expectation
usually concerns public authorities, while the estoppel may be enforceable against any person. In
legitimate expectation, you are not required to prove an injury/loss, while the estoppel necessitates
such proof. The legitimate expectation is mostly concerned with established practices, fairness,
unreasonableness, public policy and natural justice, while the estoppel is seemingly broader and
concerns itself with any representation.

In the public law context the courts have held that the justifications for enforcing the legitimate
expectations may be a broader principle of fairness and the prevention of the abuse of power by
public bodies, and so they might not require detrimental reliance of the kind that would be required
under the private law doctrine of estoppel.

An aggrieved person was entitled to judicial review he could show that the decision of the public
authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in past he had been permitted to enjoy
and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he was given
reasons for the withdrawal and opportunity to comment on such reasons. In Navjyoti Co-Group
Housing Society v. The Union of India, it was held that Group Housing Society was entitled to
‘legitimate expectation’ of following ‘consistent past practice’ in the matter of allotment even
though they may not have the legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The authority
not ought to defeat the ‘legitimate expectation’ without some overriding reasons of public policy
to justify its doing so.

So, an undertaking or promise may be one of the sources of legitimate expectation but is not
identical with that of estoppel. What is relevant in legitimate expectation is not the knowledge or
state of mind of the individual concerned as in estoppel but the interest affected by the exercise of
power by the public authority.

10 | P a g e
So a legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to relief.
Public interest, change in policy, the conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bona fide reason
given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the ‘legitimate expectation.' The
doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice as contrasted from legitimate
expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions
or negotiations with authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone
who has a recognized legal relationship with the authority.

In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. the State of U.P. it was observed by the Court that:

In order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppels it is necessary for the promisee to show
that he suffered detriment as an acting in reliance on the promise. However, we may make it clear
that by detriment we mean injustice to the promise which could result if the promisor were to
recede from the promise, then detriment could certainly come as a necessary ingredient. The
detriment in such a case is not some prejudice which would be suffered by the promisee by acting
on the promise, but prejudice which would be caused to the promise, if the promisor were allowed
to go back on the promise.

In Ashok Kumar Maheshwari (Dr.) v. the State of U.P., it was held that:

Appellant could not make any clear sound and positive averment as to which officer of the
Government, when and in what manner gave the assurance to the appellant or any of his colleagues
that they would be promoted as lecturers. It was also not stated that the appellant had, at any time,
acting upon the promise, altered his position, in any manner, especially to his detriment. Bald
pleadings cannot be made the foundation for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppels.5

5
https://ijcert.org/ems/ijcert_papers/V4I6005.pdf

11 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

It can be finally concluded that legitimate expectation has an important place in the realm of
administrative law. It is an integral component of the principle of the rule of law that power should
not be exercised arbitrarily. However, no administrator can function without the use of
discretionary power. It can also not be denied that discretionary authority is also subject to some
restrictions. Apart from other limitations one of the safeguards is provided through judicial
interpretation in a long list of cases that this administration discretion is subject to legitimate
expectation vested in the people. It cannot be expected that there can be judicial intervention in
the policy framing by the executive as it is an essential function belonging to the executive.

Legitimate expectation also arises in the form of procedural rights that in the case of withdrawal
of his rights, he will be communicated for the same and will be given an opportunity for presenting
his case.

Thus the doctrine of estoppels is closely related with legitimate expectation as both are laws of
equity and based upon clear and unambiguous promises. It is the duty of a public authority to act
fairly and non-arbitrarily to meet the expectation. However, yet there is the difference between the
two. As legitimate expectation is concerned with public authorities, there is no need to prove an
injury/loss and concerned with established practices, fairness while estoppel is enforceable against
any person, it is necessary to prove an injury/loss and is interested in any representation.

12 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRPAHY

1. Administrative Law
2. Blog.ipleaders.in
3. Legalserviceindia.com
4. H.K. Saharay (Ed.), M. Monir’s Law of Evidence, volume 2, 1863 (2006).
5. Batuk Lal, The Law Of Evidence, 375 (2004).
6. H.W.R. Wade, Administrative law, 64 (1988)
7. Cited from Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188 at 201.
8. Hira Industries Ltd. v. State of C.G. and Ors., AIR 2007 Chh 7 at 17.
9. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 at 66.
10. Haoucher v. Min., (1991) L.R.C. (Const.) 819 (836’) – Australia quoted in Durga Das
11. Basu, Constitutional Remedies and Writs, 367 (1994).

13 | P a g e