DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATATION

SUBJECT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Prof Dr. P. SRI DEVI

Name of the Candidate

Roll No. & Semester

B. DIVYA SRI, 2015024

6rd Semester, Section A

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Administrative
Law Professor Dr. P. Sri Devi for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project
regarding Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation. I have tried my best to collect information about
the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given project topic.

2
 CERTIFICATE:

PROJECT TITLE: Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation

FACULTY’S NAME: Prof Dr. P. SRI DEVI

I am B. Divya Sri, hereby declare that this project Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation submitted
by me is an original work done by me. I have accredited all those sources using which the project
has been made

Signature of the student Signature of the faculty

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

3
 1) INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….06

2) NATURE AND SCOPE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION………………….07

3) LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN INDIA…………………………………….09

4) LIMITATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE…………………………………………..12

5) PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCTRINE…………………………………………….14

6) CASES…………………………………………………………………………..14

7) CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………16

ABSTRACT

The researcher topic deals with “DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION”.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is relatively new concept that has been fashioned by
Courts for the review of administrative action. The concept gained standing after it was
introduced by Lord Denning, wherein he recognized, as obiter, the ‘right, interest, or legitimate
expectation’ of an individual against an administrative action with regards to the right to be
heard.

When an individual seeks judicial review on the ground of his legitimate expectation being
defeated, Courts have to first determine whether there existed a legitimate expectation. A
legitimate expectation is said to arise “as a result of a promise, representation, practice or policy

4
made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of government or a public authority." Therefore it
extends to a benefit that an individual has received and can legitimately expect to continue or a
benefit that he expects to receive.

When such a legitimate expectation of an individual is defeated, it gives that person the locus
standi to challenge the administrative decision as illegal. Thus even in the absence of a
substantive right, a legitimate expectation can enable an individual to seek judicial review.

As already stated that the Doctrine of "Legitimate Expectation " is not a legal right in itself
embedded in some statute of Code readily available for its inference and applicability. However
it is a right to be treated fairly and the same has been fashioned by judicial precedents of various
courts over a period time and is still in its evolving stage.

This project deals with the Procedural and Substantive aspects, its origin and evolution of
doctrine of legitimate expectation in India with recent cases

INTRODUCTION:

With the passage of time, the judicial view has been further liberalized on the question of a
person's right to be heard. In course of time, a proposition has become well established that a
person can claim a hearing before he is deprived of his legitimate expectation. The term
legitimate expectation goes beyond right or interest. Legitimate expectation includes expectation,
which goes beyond an enforceable legal right, provided it has some reasonable basis.

Expectation may be based upon some express statement, or undertaking by, or on behalf of. the
public authority which has the duty of making the decision, or from the existence of a regular
practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue.

5
The concept of legitimate expectation has made the area of applicability of natural justice much
broader.

Principles of natural justice apply in cases where there is some right, which is likely to be
affected by an act of administration. Good administration however demands observance of
doctrine of reasonableness in other situations also where the citizens may legitimately expect to
be treated fairly.

Legitimate expectation is now considered to be a part of the principles of natural justice. If by

reason of existing state of affairs a party is given to understand that the other party shall not take
away the benefit without complying with the principles of natural justice, the said doctrine would
be applicable. The legislature. Indisputably, has the power to legislate but where the law itself
recognizes existing right and did not take away the same expressly or by necessary implication,
the principle of legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit may be held to be applicable

DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

The doctrine of “legitimate expectations” has been recently recognized in the English as well as
in the Indian legal system. It is the “latest recruit” to a long list of concepts fashioned by the
courts for the review of administrative actions. The doctrine has an important place in the
development of law of judicial review.

NATURE AND SCOPE:

A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an

administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such
treatment.

Where a decision of an administrative authority adversely affects legal rights of an individual,

duty to act judicially is implicit. But even in cases where there is no legal right, he may still have
legitimate expectation of receiving the benefit or privilege. Such expectation may arise either
from express promise or from existence of regular practice, which the applicant can reasonably
expect to continue. In such cases, the court may protect his expectation by invoking principles

6
analogous to natural justice and fair play in action. The court may not insist an administrative
authority to act judicially but may still insist him to act fairly.

Object:

Principles of natural justice will apply in cases where there is some right, which is likely to be
affected by an act of administration. Good administration, however, demands observance of
doctrine of reasonableness in other situations also where the citizens may legitimately expect to
be treated fairly.

A doctrine of legitimate expectation has been developed both in the context of reasonableness
and in the context of natural justice.

Doctrine explained:

In the leading case of Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuan Shiu1 Lord Fraser stated:

When a public authority has promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the interest of good
administration that it should act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as the
implementation does not interfere with its Statutory duty.

Wade also states:

In many cases legal rights are affected, as where property is taken by compulsory purchase or
someone is dismissed from a public officer. But in Other cases, the person affected may have no
more than an interest, a liberty or an expectation...‘legitimate expectation’ which means
reasonable expectation, can equally well be invoked in any of many situations where fairness and
good administration justify the right to be heard.

Public law remedy:

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is well established and operated in the domain of public
law. Being less than an enforceable right, it does not apply to private law. The government and
its departments, in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honor consistent code
1
1983 2 AC 629

7
of conduct by treating all citizens fairly and equally. Every action of the State must be rational
and in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution. The doctrine of legitimate expectation thus
gets assimilated in the doctrine of rule of law.

Development:

The concept of legitimate expectation made its first appearance in Schmidt v. Secy. of State for
Home Affair2, wherein it was held that an alien who was granted leave to enter the UK for a
limited period had legitimate expectation of being allowed to stay for the permitted period.

The doctrine was reiterated when alien students were refused extension of their permits as an act
of policy by the Home Secretary. The Court of Appeal held that though the students had no right
for extension, revocation of permits would be contrary to “legitimate expectation”.

Illustrations

The promise of a hearing before a decision is taken may give rise to a legitimate expectation that
a hearing will be given. A past practice of consulting before a decision is taken may give rise to
an expectation of consultation before any future decision is taken. A promise to confer, or past
practice of conferring a substantive benefit, may give rise to an expectation that the individual
will be given a hearing before a decision is taken not to confer the benefit. The actual enjoyment
of a benefit may create a legitimate expectation that the benefit will not be removed without the
individual being given a hearing. 0n occasions, individuals seek to enforce the promise or
expectation itself, by claiming that the substantive benefit be conferred. Decisions affecting such
legitimate expectations are subject to judicial review.

DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN INDIA:

The Courts in India have also recognized the concept of legitimate expectation. In Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand.3 Supreme Court held that: “The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a
nascent addition to the rules of natural justice. It goes beyond statutory rights by serving as
another device for rendering justice. At the root of the principle of legitimate expectation is the
constitutional principle of rule of law, which requires regularity. Predictability and certainty in
2
(1969) 2 Ch 149
3
(2008) 10 SCC 1

8
Government's dealings with the public-J Raz. The Authority of Law [(1979) Chapter It]. The
“legal certainty" is also a basic principle of European community. European law is based upon
the concept of venrauensschutz (the honoring of a trust of confidence). It is for these reasons that
the existence of a legitimate expectation may even in the absence of a tight of private law. justify
its recognition in public law."

In CSIR v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal4 it was observed: “Legitimate expectation is based on the
principles of natural justice. There has to be a basis for giving effect to the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. It must not be based on mere anticipation”.

Legitimate Expectation And Natural Justice

Fair procedure and just treatment are the core of our jurisprudence, Hence, where the
government or an instrumentality of State declares a policy, or holds out a promise, or makes a
statement, or adopts a particular code of conduct, the doctrine of legitimate expectation operate...
It would be unfair on the part of public authority to ignore policy m deviate from practice. It
would be akin to violation of principles of natural justice. Wade rightly States that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation has been developed, both in context of reasonableness and natural
justice.”

Legitimate Expectation And Unreasonableness

In administering affairs of the country, the government and its instrumentalities are expected to
honor policy statements without unfair discrimination to persons similarly situated. It is in this
context that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is evolved and has become a procedural as
well as substantive right.

The question whether the expectation and claim is legitimate is a question of fact, which can be
decided keeping in View larger public interest.

Legitimate Expectation And Public Policy

It is open to the government to frame and re-frame, change and re-change its policy}?8 If the
policy is changed and the court does not find it arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise

4
(2008) 3 SCC 35

9
objectionable, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not make a decision of the government
vulnerable. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO5, the Supreme Court held that withdrawal of
tax benefits in larger public interest would not give rise to a complaint that there was breach of
the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Legitimate Expectation And Estoppel

Although there is some similarity between the two doctrines, and arguments under the label of
“estoppel” and “legitimate expectation” are substantially the same, both the doctrines are distinct
and separate. The element of acting to applicant’s detriment, which is a sine qua non for invoking
estoppel, is not a necessary ingredient of legitimate expectation

WHEN ARISES LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION MAY ARISE:

1. If there is an express promise held out or representation made by a public authority; or

2. Because of the existence of past practice, which the claimant can reasonably expect to
continue;

3. Such promise or representation is clear and unambiguous

Duty Of Applicant

Legitimate expectation affords the applicant standing to apply for judicial review A person who
bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the first instance, must satisfy that
there is a foundation for such claim.

Duty Of Authority

Where the applicant prima facie satisfies the court that his claim on the basis of legitimate
expectation is well founded, it is for the authority to justify the action taken against the applicant.

Duty Of Court

When the applicant makes out a case of legitimate expectation, the court will consider the prayer
of the applicant for grant of relief. The protection of legitimate expectation does not require the

5
(2005) I SCC 625

10
fulfillment of the expectation where public interest requires otherwise. The court may uphold the
decision taken by the authority on the basis of overriding public interest. Thus, protection of
doctrine of legitimate expectation and grant of relief in favour of the claimant are two distinct
and separate matters and presence of former does not necessarily result in the latter.

SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

The doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in developing the law of judicial
review. To qualify as a subject of judicial review, the decision impugned must have consequences
which affect a person or body of persons 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 allowed to continue until there has been communication to him some
rational ground for withdrawal thereof; or 2) he had received assurance from the decision-maker
that such benefits will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing
reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn

CONSEQUENCES

The doctrine of legitimate expectation has several consequences. It may give locus standi to a
claim to seek leave to apply for judicial review. It may mean that the authority ought not to act so
as to defeat the expectation without justifiable cause. It may also mean that before defeating a
person’s legitimate expectation, the authority should afford him an Opportunity of making
representation on the matter. The claim based on the legitimate expectation can be sustained and
the decision resulting in denial of such expectation can be questioned or challenged in a court of
law, provided that the same is found to be unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of
principles of natural justice.

LIMITATIONS OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION:

The doctrine of “legitimate expectation” has its own limitations.

The concept of legitimate expectation is only procedural and has no substantive impact. In
Attorney General for New South Wales v. Quinnm6, one Q was a stipendiary Magistrate in charge
of Court of Petty Sessions. By an Act of legislature that court was replaced by Local Court.
6
(1990) 64 Aust LJR 327

11
Though applied, Q was not appointed under the new system. That action was challenged. The
court dismissed the claim observing that if substantive protection is to be accorded to legitimate
expectations, it would result in interference with administrative decisions on merits which is not
permissible.

Moreover, the doctrine does not apply to legislative activities. Thus, in R. v. Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex p jaderow Ltd 7, conditions were imposed on fishing licenses.
The said action was challenged contending that the new policy was against “legitimate
expectations". Rejecting the argument and dismissing the action, the court held that the doctrine
of “legitimate expectations” cannot preclude legislation.

Likewise, in Srinivasa Theatre v. Govt. of T.N8, by amending the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, the method of taxation was changed. The validity of the
amendment was challenged inter alia on the ground that it was against legitimate expectation of
the law in force prior to amendment. Rejecting the argument and following Council of Civil
Service Unions, the Supreme Court held that a legislation cannot be invalidated on the basis that
it offends the legitimate expectations of the persons affected thereby.

Again, doctrine of “legitimate expectations” does not apply if it is contrary to public policy or
against the security of State.

Thus, in Council of Civil Service Unions, the staff of Government Communications Head
Quarters (GCHQ) had the right to unionization. By an order of the government, the employees of
GCHQ were deprived of this right. The union challenged the said action contending that the
employees of GCHQ had legitimate expectations of being consulted before the Minister took
action.

Though in theory, the House of Lords agreed with the argument of the Union about legitimate
expectations, it held that “the Security considerations put forward by the government-override
the right of the Union to prior consultation.”

7
(1990) 2 QB 193
8
(1992) 2 SCC 499

12
Similarly, in State of HP. v. Kailasla Chand Mahajan9 an Act was amended by providing age of
superannuation. It was contended that when an appointment was made by fixing a tenure, there
was right to continue and the doctrine of legitimate expectation would apply. The claim was,
however, negatived observing that “legitimate expectation cannot preclude legislation.”

In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn10. in government contract, dual pricing policy
was fixed by the State Authorities (lower price for big suppliers and higher price for small
suppliers). That action was taken in larger public interest and with a view to break “cartel”, it
was held that adoption of dual pricing policy by government did not amount to denial of
legitimate expectation.

PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION:

In Mannet ispat & energy ltd v. Union of lndia 11 the Supreme Court held that the following
principles are now well-established in relation to the doctrine of legitimate expectation:

I. The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked as a substantive and enforceable right.

2.. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded on the principle of reasonableness and
fairness. The doctrine arises out of principles of natural justice and there are parallels between
the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

9
AIR 1992 SC 1277
10
AIR 1994 SC 988
11
(2012) II SCC I

13
3. Where the decision of an authority is founded in public interest as per executive policy or law,
the court would be reluctant to interfere with such decision by invoking the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. The legitimate expectation doctrine cannot be invoked to fetter changes in
administrative policy if it is in the public interest to do so.

4. The legitimate expectation is different from anticipation and an anticipation cannot amount to
an assert able expectation. Such expectation should be justifiable, legitimate and protectable.

5. The protection of legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation
where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, personal benefit must
give way to public interest and the doctrine of legitimate expectation would not be invoked
which could block public interest for private benefit.

CASES:

In Ng Yuen Sbiu12 the government announced that illegal immigrants would not be deported till
their cases would be considered individually on merits. A deportation order was passed against
the applicant without affording opportunity. Quashing the order, the court observed:

When a public authority has promised to follow a certain 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.

12
(1983) 2 AC 629

14
In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union‘s13, Lord Denning stated that if a person seeks a privilege
to which he has no claim, he can be turned away without a word. He need not be heard. But if he
is deprived of his livelihood, he should be afforded a hearing. Likewise, if he has some right of
interest, or legitimate expectation, of which it would not be fair to deprive him without hearing,
then he should be afforded hearing.

In Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of Indiaz 14, as per the policy of the
government, allotment of land to housing society was to be given on the basis of “first come first
served”. It was held that the societies who had applied earlier could invoke the doctrine of
“legitimate expectation”

15
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of Indian the Supreme Court held that
in recommending appointment to the g Supreme Court, due consideration of every legitimate
expectation has to be observed by the Chief Justice of India.

just as a High Court Judge at the time of his initial appointment has the legitimate expectation to
become Chief justice of a High Court in his turn in the ordinary course, he has the legitimate
expectation to be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court in his turn, according to his
seniority.

In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 16 the corporation invited
tenders for sale of damaged foodgrains. The bid of the respondent K was the highest. All bidders
were, however, invited by the corporation for negotiation. K did not raise bid but held a petition
contending that since he was the highest bidder, he ought to have been awarded the work. He
relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The High Court allowed the petition.

Reversing the decision, the Supreme Court held that negotiations were held and all bidders were
afforded equal Opportunity of revising bids. K ought to have raised his bid if he was interested in
getting the contract Reliance on the doctrine, on the facts of the case was not well-founded.

13
(1971) 2 QB 175
14
(1992) 4 SCC 477
15
(1993) 4 SCC 441
16
(1993) I SCC 71

15
In J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthanm17, B was appointed as Chairman of Taxation Tribunal on
temporary basis till regular Chairman was appointed. Meanwhile, however, the State abolished
the Tribunal. B claimed f5,oo,ooo with 15 per cent interest as compensation. He pleaded doctrine
of legitimate expectation.

Dismissing the petition, the court held that appointment of B was purely contractual and the
doctrine of legitimate expectation had no application nor B was entitled to compensation.

In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO18 certain tax benefits, which were granted by the State
earlier, were withdrawn. The action was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the State action.
The court said:

The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation
where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person’s
legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then the decision-maker
should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest.

CONCLUSION:

From the above discussion, it is clear that the doctrine of legitimate expectations in essence
imposes a duty to act fairly. Legitimate expectations may come in various forms and owe their
existence to different kinds of circumstances. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list in the
context of vast and fast expansion of government activities. They shift and change so fast that the
start of our list would be absolute before we reached the middle.

One thing, however, is clear. A court cannot assume jurisdiction to review administrative act or
decision, which is unfair in the opinion of the court. If that be allowed, the court would be
exercising jurisdiction to do the very thing which is to be done by the repository of an
17
(2003) 5 SCC 134
18
(2005) I SCC 625

16
administrative power, i.e.. Choosing among the courses of action upon which reasonable minds
might differ.

It is submitted that the following observations of Brennan J in Attorney ‘ General for New South
Wales v. Quinn19 lay down the correct law on the Court must stop short of compelling fulfillment
of the promise or practice unless the statute so requires or the statute permits the repository of the
power to bind itself as to the manner of the future exercise of the power. it follows that the notion
of legitimate expectation is not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it Ought
not unlocks the gate which shuts the court out of review on the merits.

19
AIR 1994 SC 998

17