NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,

RANCHI

Doctrine of legitimate Expectation

Project submitted to: Project Submitted by:

Mr. Jagdish Jena Shailesh Kumar
Bhoyar
Assistant Professor, Law Semester V, Roll No. 651
Section
‘A’

0|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ………………………………….………………………………………02
2. Review of the Literature…………………………………...…………………………06
3. Statement of Problem…………………………………………………………………
06
4. Research Methodology……………………………………………………….………07
5. Development in India…………………………………………………………………
07
6. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution of India…….11

7. Chapters & Sub-chapters……………………………………………….…………….07

8. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………12
9. References……………………………………………………………………………13

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

Expectation of a person can be conceived in various forms and degrees. A new recruit in
service expects to be given an annual increment, in keeping with the escalation of prices, to
mitigate the cost of. Likewise, living an expectation of time scale promotion in service
hierarchy and even an out of turn promotion, for one who is dedicated, hardworking, and
sincere and is producing succeeding excellent results. Legitimate Expectation of a person is
of being treated in a certain way by an Authority even though one has no right in a Private
Law to be treated as expected. Legitimate Expectation may arise either from a representation
or promise made by the Authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent
past practice.

Concept of legitimate expectation in administrative law has now gained sufficient

importance. “Legitimate Expectation” is the latest recruit to the long list of concepts
fashioned by the Courts for the review of administrative actions, and this creation takes its
place beside such principles as the rules of natural justice, unreasonableness, the judiciary
duty of local authorities and in future perhaps, the principle of proportionality.
It was, in fact, for the purpose of restricting the right to be heard that ‘legitimate expectation’
was introduced into the law. It made its first appearance in English case where alien students
of ‘Scientology’ were refused extension of their entry permits as an act of policy by the
Home Secretary, who had announced that “no discretionary benefits would be granted to this
sect. they had no legitimate expectation of extension beyond the permitted time and so no
right to a hearing, though revocation of their permits within that time would have been
contrary to legitimate expectation. Official statements of policy may cancel legitimate
expectation; just as they may create it”.

2|Page
No order can be passed without hearing a person if it entails civil consequences. Where even
though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the
order passed by a public authority, the doctrine of legitimate expectation come into play and
the person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an
administrative authority.
It Government holds out a promise based or which, new industries are established in the
region acting on such promise; the same in equity would bind the Government. However, an
overriding public interest can out do the Legitimate Expectation. If public interest is not
involved, the Legitimate Expectation shall have its full sway, however, it must be proved that
a Legitimate Authority made a promise, which was acted upon, and substantial investments
& expenditure was made. It is however, to be noted that Public Interest is not Justiceable.
It has been said that the doctrine of legitimate expectation belongs to the domain of public
law and is intended to give relief to the people when they are not able to justify their claims
on the basis of law in the strict sense of the term though they had suffered a civil consequence
because their legitimate expectation had been violated. The term legitimate expectation’ was
first used by Lord Denning in 1969 and from that time it has assumed the position of a
significant doctrine of public law in almost all jurisdictions.
The principal of legitimate expectation is closely connected with a ‘right to be heard’. Such
an action may take many forms. One may be expectation of prior consultation. Another may
be expectation of being allowed time to make representations, especially where the aggrieved
party is seeking to persuade an authority to depart from a lawfully established policy adopted
in connection with the exercise of a particular power because of some suggested exceptional
reasons justifying such a departure.
In India the Apex Court has developed this doctrine in order to check the arbitrary exercise of
power by the administrative authorities. In private law a person can approach the court only
when his right based on statute or contract is violated but this rule of locusstandi is relaxed in
public law to allow standing even when a legitimate expectation from a public authority is
not fulfilled. Therefore, this doctrine provides central space between ‘no claim’ and a ‘legal
claim’ wherein a public authority can be made accountable on the ground of an expectation
which is legitimate. For example, if the Government has made a scheme for providing
drinking water in villages in certain area but after on changed it so as to exclude certain
villages from the purview of the scheme then in such a case what is violated is the legitimate
expectation of the people in the excluded villages for tap water and the government can be
held responsible if exclusion is not fair and reasonable.

3|Page
Thus, this doctrine becomes a part of the principles of natural justice and no one can be
deprived of his legitimate expectations without following the principles of natural justice.
Like the bulk of the administrative law the doctrine of legitimate expectation is also a fine
example of judicial creativity. Nevertheless, it is not extra-legal and extra constitutional. A
natural habitat for this doctrine can be found in Article 14 of the Constitution which abhors
arbitrariness and insists on fairness in all administrative dealings. It is now firmly established
that the protection of Article 14 is available not only in case of arbitrary “class legislation”
but also in case of arbitrary “State action”. Thus, the doctrine is being hailed as a fine
principle of administrative jurisprudence for reconciling power with liberty. The doctrine has
negative and positive contents both. If applied negatively an administrative authority can be
prohibited from violating the legitimate expectations of the people and if applied in a positive
manner an administrative authority can be compelled to fulfil the legitimate expectations of
the people. This is based on the principle that public power is a trust which must be exercised
in the best interest of its beneficiaries- the people.
There is Procedural as well as Substantive Legitimate Expectations which are subject to
Proportionality Test and its characteristics. Inspite of charismatic and noble ideals enshrined
in our Constitution, of securing social, economic, and political justice for the people and also
equality of status and opportunity, the ground realities widely differ in action and harmony
according to the Directive principles of State Policy and lack in transparency in State actions
which is becoming a serious concern warranting Micro Study of corrective measures needed
to safeguard the interests of Public at large, such as the Right to Information Act 2005, and
the Act under legislation for compliance of Time Bound Public Services etc. Power, Judicial
or Executive, has a tendency to expand its parameters by stretching its limits. The Doctrine of
Legitimate Expectations owes its birth to screen this urge of expansionism. It is in fact a legal
curiosity and gives sufficient locus-standi for Judicial Review. Thus, it is a Doctrine of Check
and Balance.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a concept which has been evolved to exercise
control over the discretionary power conferred on executive. This doctrine imposes a duty on
public authority taking into consideration the entire relevant factor relating to such
expectation. The origin of legitimate expectation can be traced in German concept of
Vertrauenschutz – the protection of trust. Legitimate expectation includes expectation which
goes beyond an enforceable right, provided it has some reasonable basis. Expectation may be
based upon some express statement, or undertaking by or on behalf of public authority which
has the duty of making the decision or from the existence of regular practice which the

4|Page
claimant can reasonably expect to continue 1. The basic principle of legitimate expectation
was explained by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Union V/s. Minister for the Civil
Service2. 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 the case of Madras city Wine Merchants Assn Vs State of T.N.3 circumstances were laid
down which may arise legitimate expectation - 1) if there is 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 and 3) such promise or repsentation is
clear and unambiguous.
Such legitimate expectations are commonly divided into procedural legitimate expectations,
where the expectation is of a procedural benefit such as notice or consultation before any
change of tack on the part of the public authority, following that procedural part of it relates
to a representation that a hearing or the appropriate procedure will be afforded before
decision is made.4 Whereas substantive legitimate expectations, where the expectation is that
the public authority will act in accordance with its representation as a matter of substance. In
other words, substantive part is that if representation is made that a benefit of a substantive
nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit that it will be
continued and not be substantially varied then the same could be enforced. The substantive
aspects of the doctrine overlap with the doctrine of promissory estoppels, with the difference
that in promissory estoppels, there is promise on behalf of the authority whereas in legitimate
expectation, disappointment is caused by sudden change of policy or procedure.

1
[Link] & [Link], Principles of Administrative Law, (6th edition), lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 2011
2
(1985) AC 374 (408-409) (commonly known as CCSU case)
3
(1994) 5 SCC 509
4
Constitution of India, Dr. J.N. Pandey, 45th edition, p. 87

5|Page
In the doctrine’s substantive sense, it is another parameter for judging the validity of the
exercise of administrative discretion. Where discretion is exercised in a manner not consistent
with past practice or policy, its reasonableness is examined with reference to the detriment
caused by the non-fulfilment of legitimate expectation. The procedural dimension of the
doctrine brings into play the requirement of a hearing. Where persons are legitimately entitled
to expect that certain entitlements would continue with them, but they are not continued,
court insist that such decisions should be taken after giving to such person s an opportunity of
being heard.5 The doctrine of legitimate expectation has to be consistent with statutory
provision.6 In other words a right cannot be claimed on the basis of legitimate expectation
when it is contrary to statutory provisions which have been enforced in public interest. 7
Similarly principal of legitimate expectation do not apply to public authorities when their
mistaken advice or representation is found to be in breach of statute and is therefore not in
public interest.8

LITERATURE REVIEW
There is dearth of relevant literature on the Doctrine in India and hardly any standard treatise
is published. The Doctrine is treated as an ingredient of Administrative Law and just a
passing reference is made to it in literature published in India. It is for this reason that one has
to refer to foreign publications on the Doctrine and endlessly search through various articles
to appreciate and record the spirit behind the Doctrine. Legitimate Expectations, in its present
form, first emerged, as a Doctrine, in its Modern Consent - Public Law, in the Judgement of
Lord Denning in 1969. The first reference to the Doctrine was made in India in State of
Kerala Vs KG Madhawan Pillai.9
This is one of the Newest Doctrines, which is having its teething troubles at the hands of the
State as it takes the state to accountability for its Governance in varied forms. It can be
surmised from the Books and Literature available that the Doctrine, being in its
developmental stage, has attracted, till now, few scholars and writers to dwell upon the
subject.
As the Doctrine is gaining ground steadily, more and more, researches are giving it due
attention particularly in Indian scenario, which embodies the Doctrine in the Constitution.

5
S.P. Seth, Administrative Law, (7th edition), Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2006
6
[Link] V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 8 SCC 617 para 12.
7
Howrah Municipal Corporation Vs. Ganges Road Company Limited, (2004) 1 SCC 663
8
Hira Tikkoo V. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2004) 6 SCC 765
9
1989 AIR 49, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 94

6|Page
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation has gained acceptance and is well set in India. It is
now a subject matter of Judicial Review at Large. The Doctrine has found acceptance in most
of the Democratically Governed Countries and is bringing about Judicial Development and
awakening the spirit of Good Governance.
The Constitution of India enunciates the goal of securing, social, economic, and political
justice for the people and also equality of status and opportunity. Inspite of the charismatic
and noble ideals enshrined in our Constitution, the ground realities widely differ in action
according to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Lack in transparency in State
Actions.
The present socio-political, and economic betrayal by State in its actions, is fast becoming a
serious concern warranting micro study of corrective measures needed to safe guard the
interests of the Public at Large. The need of the study of Legitimacy of State actions in its
Governance according to Constitutional provisions thus becomes important to ensure Public
Accountability.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The subject entitled, "The Expanding Horizon of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: A
Critical Global Study" limits the arena of various forms of Research Methodology to
Development of the Doctrine, Legal Status and Recognition that it has gained and its
manifestations worldwide.
The main criterion of the Research Methodology thus lies and revolves around the
Constitutional Provisions, Statutory Law and its implications, Judicial Review and Decisions
of The Supreme Courts. The researcher will study the Books Treatises, Journal Articles, Case
Law and Discussions on the Doctrine sourced from various web-sites to collect Basic
Material to be use in furtherance of the objectives.

DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

The legal position in India is more or less the same as in England. The precise
content of this doctrine, which enables an aggrieved person to seek his remedy by judicial
review, has also been the subject matter of evolution through judicial decisions. In Navjyoti

7|Page
Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India10, the Supreme Court recognized that by
reason of application of the said doctrine, an aggrieved party would be entitled to seek
judicial review, “if he could show that a decision of the public authority affected him of some
benefit or advantage which in the 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 withdrawal and the opportunity to comment such reasons”. In this case the seniority as per
the existing list of cooperative housing society for allotment of land was altered by
subsequent decision. The previous policy was that the seniority amongst housing societies in
regard to allotment of land was to be based on the date of registration of the society with the
Registrar. But on 20.1.1990, the policy was changed by reckoning seniority as based upon
the date of approval of the final list by the Registrar. This altered the existing seniority of the
society for allotment of land. The Supreme Court held that the societies were entitled to a
“legitimate expectation” that the past consistent practice in the matter of allotment be
followed even if there was no right in private law for such allotment. The authority was not
entitled to defeat the legitimate expectation of the societies as per the previous seniority list
without some overriding reason of public policy as to justify change in the criterion. No such
overriding public interest was shown.

The Supreme Court recognized that the doctrine, in essence, imposes a duty on public
authority to act fairly taking into consideration all relevant factors before effecting a change
in its policies which would affect a person who had been beneficiary of the continuing policy.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation provides that the statements of policy or

intention of the Government or its Department in administering its affairs should be without
abuse or discretion. The policy statement could not be disregarded unfairly or applied
selectively for the reason that unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation
of natural justice. It means that said actions have to be in conformity of Article 14 of the
Constitution, of which non-arbitrariness is a second facet. Public Authority cannot claim to
have unfettered discretion in public law as the authority is conferred with power only to use
them for public good. Generally legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character
as it gives assurance of fair play in administrative action but it may in a given case be
enforced as a substantive right. But a person claiming it has to satisfy the Court that his
rights had been altered by enforcing a right in private law or he has been deprived of some
benefit or advantage which he was having in the past and which he could legitimately expect

10
. (1992) 4 SCC 477.

8|Page
to be permitted to continue unless it is withdrawn on some rational ground or he has received
assurance from the decision making Authority which is not fulfilled, i.e., the kind of
promissory estoppel.

Change of policy should not violate the substantive legitimate expectation and if it
does so it must be as the change of policy which is necessary and such a change is not
irrational or perverse.

The next case in which the doctrine of “legitimate expectation” was considered is the
case of Food Corpn. of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries.11 There the Food
Corporation of India invited tenders for sale of stocks of damaged food grains and the
respondent’s bid was the highest. All tenderers were invited for negotiation, but the
respondent did not raise his bid during negotiation while others did. The respondent filed a
writ petition claiming that it had a legitimate expectation of acceptance of its bid, which was
the highest. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Reversing the judgement, the
Supreme Court referred to CCSU Case12 and to Preston, in re13 and held that though the
respondent’s bid was highest, still it had no right to have it accepted. No doubt, its tender
could not be arbitrarily rejected, but if the Corporation reasonably felt that the amount offered
by the respondent was inadequate as per the factors operating in the commercial field, the
non-acceptance of bid could not be faulted. The procedure of negotiation itself involved
giving due weight to the legitimate expectation of the highest bidder and thus was sufficient.

In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation 14, the Supreme Court has
pointed out that “the concept of legitimate expectation which is latest recruit to a long list of
concepts fashioned by the courts for the review of administrative action, must be restricted to
the general legal limitations applicable and binding (sic) the manner of the future exercise of
administrative power in a particular case”. According to the Supreme Court an element of
‘speculation’ and ‘uncertainty’ is inherent in that very concept. In this case tenders were
called for supply of cast-steel bogies to the Railways. The three big manufacturers quoted
less than the smaller manufacturers. The Railway then adopted a dual-pricing policy giving
counter-offers at a lower rate to the big manufacturers who allegedly formed a cartel and a
higher offer to others so as to enable a healthy competition. This was challenged by three big
11
. (1993) 1. S.C.C. 71.
12
. See J. Usher, “The Influence of National Concepts on Decisions of the European Court” (1976) 1
European Law Review 359 at 364 and Re Civil Service Salaries: E.C. Commission v. E.C. Council, (1973)
E.C.R. 575; (1973) C.M.L.R. 639.
13
. 1985 AC 835; (1985) 2 All E R 327.
14
. (1993) 3 SCC 499

9|Page
manufacturers complaining that they were also entitled to a higher rate and a large number of
bogies. The Supreme Court held that the change into a dual-pricing policy was not vitiated
and was based on “rational and reasonable” grounds.

The Court noted that

legitimate expectation was not the same thing as an anticipation. It was also
different from a mere wish to desire or hope; nor was it a claim or demand
based on a right. A mere disappointment would not give rise to legal
consequences.

At another place, in the same judgement, the position was indicated as follows:

The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the

sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and
natural sequence.... Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and
protectable.

In M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P.15 the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation has its application only in the realm of public law and that in an
“appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right”. On the facts of the instant
case, it was held that the industries, with whom the State government had entered into
agreements for supply of sal seeds, had a legitimate expectation that in accordance with the
renewal clause and in accordance with the past practice, the agreements would be renewed in
the usual manner. The Court also ruled that the selected industries, with which the state had
entered into agreements for supply of sal seeds at concessional rates, needed the protection of
continuing such agreements and hence, the renewal clause were provided in those
agreements. The Court attached considerable importance to the need for protection of such
selected industries by upholding the validity of the renewal clauses in those agreements,
although it was apparent in the mind of the Court that to ensure fair play and transparency in
the state’s action, it was desirable that distribution of state largesse was affected by inviting
open tenders or by public auction. The Court, however, felt that special agreements entered
into with the selected industrial units by the state government were permissible. The decision
reflects the mind of the court that it considered the doctrine of legitimate expectation as an
equitable principle and that in order to give full effect to this principle, application of another
principle in the realm of public law may, if need be, have to be restricted.

15
. (1997) 7 SCC 592.

10 | P a g e
 The Supreme Court laid down a clear principle that claims on legitimate expectation
required reliance on representation and resultant detriment in the same way as claims based
on promissory estoppel. In National Buildings Construction Corporation v S.
Raghunathan16, the respondents were appointed in CPWD. They went on deputation to
NBCC in Iraq and opted to draw, while on deputation, their grade pays in CPWD plus
deputation allowance. Besides that, NBCC granted them foreign allowance at 125% of the
basic pay. Meanwhile their basic pay in CPWD was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the
recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission. They contended that the aforesaid increase
of 125% should be given by NBCC on their revised scales. This was not accepted by NBCC.
The contention of the respondents based on legitimate expectation was rejected in view of the
peculiar conditions and financial stringency (due to embargo put by UNO) under which
NBCC was working in Iraq. On the facts of the case, the Court, found that since there was no
promise or agreement or contract of service executed by NBCC for payment of foreign
allowance to its employees, who were posted on overseas projects, they could not have any
legitimate expectation of receiving such allowance. The Court further ruled that the question,
whether the expectations and the claims made thereupon were legitimate or not, was
essentially a question of fact and therefore, the rules of pleading would strictly apply. A
party which seeks a relief from the Court claiming expectation, ought to place such facts
before the court as would enable it to satisfy itself that such claim is legitimate. It was
observed by the Supreme Court that the doctrine of “legitimate expectation” had both
substantive and procedural aspects.
The Supreme Court restated that a policy decision making representation that benefits
of substantive nature will be granted, creates legitimate expectation which is substantive in
nature and is normally binding on the decision maker. But such policy can be changed in
overriding public interest, since choice of policy is for the decision-maker. However, the
Court emphasised that change in policy defeating substantive legitimate expectation must
satisfy the test of Wednesbury reasonableness. The Courts can interfere on being satisfied
that change in policy is irrational or perverse. In Punjab Communication v. Union of India,17
the government had changed its earlier policy to provide digital wireless telecom facility
which was for Eastern Uttar Pradesh villages to a policy to provide wider coverage of
villages through analog system. Punjab Communications Limited had filed lowest tender
under the first scheme and hence approached the court on the ground of violation of its

16
. (1998) 7 SCC 66.
17
. (1999) 4 SCC 727

11 | P a g e
legitimate expectation. The Court found that change in policy is neither irrational nor
perverse, hence, no violation of legitimate expectation

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every citizen has the right to equality of law
and equal protection before law. The concept of an arbitrary action being in violation of
Article 14 was first introduced by J. Bhagwati in the case of E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil
Nadu18 wherein he stated that ‘equality is antithetic to arbitrariness’. Thus Article 14 has a
very wide ambit and encompasses within it equality, the principles of natural justice and is a
mandate against arbitrary state actions. This imposes a duty on the state to act fairly. Good
governance in conformity with the mandate of Article 14, “raises a reasonable or legitimate
expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in its interaction with the state and its
instrumentalities."

Law includes “any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage
having in the territory of India the force of law". By virtue of Article 13(2),19 any law made in
contravention of any provision of the Constitution is void. Thus, anything which is arbitrary
or unreasonable or violative of the principles of natural justice is void by virtue of Article 14
read with Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Applying such a high threshold of proof for the
doctrine of legitimate expectation is unnecessary as is the doctrine itself by appearances.

It must also be noted that Article 14 encompasses the principles of natural justice which
include right to hearing. It could be argued that the doctrine of legitimate expectations has its
grounding in the Constitutional provisions of India, much like they do in Germany. However,
the Supreme Court has applied a confused approach to the doctrine of legitimate expectation
and in the process, made the doctrine irrelevant, without realizing its potential.

CHAPTERS & SUB-CHAPTERS

1. Development in India
2. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

CONCLUSION

18
1974 AIR 555
19
The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law
made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void

12 | P a g e
The plea of legitimate expectation still remains a very weak plea in Indian Administrative
Law. A claim for a benefit on the basis of legitimate expectation is more often negative by
the courts. It is rarely that such a plea is accepted by courts in India. It is humbly submitted,
therefore, that in situation of confusion of ideas regarding the concept of legitimate
expectation what needs to be realized is that the concept envisages not merely "expectation"
but "legitimate expectation" which means that there is already something super-added to just
"expectation" - some kind of assurance or representation by the administration or the fact that
the expectation has been recognized over a period of time. What needs to be realized is that
the concept is more of an equitable nature rather than legalistic in nature.

REFERENCES
1. International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies: ISSN:2348-8212
(Volume 1 issue 6)
2. Hidayatullah M. Introduction to B.K Nehru Thoughts on our present Discontent,
1986.
3. Justice Thakker, Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The Law.
4. Jain & Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (6th ed. 2010).
5. [Link] & [Link], Principles of Administrative Law, (6th edition), lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011

13 | P a g e