# Shishir Patel v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 833
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-28
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 13940 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shishir-patel-v-u-o-i-ors-47404
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A.S.G., Kumar Sambhav

A.
Words
&
phrases
-
legitimate
expectation - The law is settled that a
legitimate expectation, even wehn made
out, does not always entitle the expectant
to a relief. Public interest, change in
policy, conduct of the expectant or any
other valid or bonafide reason given by
the decision-maker, may be sufficient to
negative the legitimate expectation. (Para
23)

In pursuance to an advertisement issued by
the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) for award of
Regular
Retail
Outlet
Dealership,
the
petitioner was given the opportunity to
provide
suitable
piece
of
land
at
the
advertised
location
vide
letter
dated
04.09.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner entered
into a lease agreement for 20 years on
rent/premium with a private person. The
Brochure classified the applicants into three
categories based on the land offered or land
not offered by them in the application. After
perusing the clauses of the brochure, The
Court is of the view that mere offer of land to
the IOC by the applicant may be in Group 1, 2
or 3 does not give rise to any legitimate
expectation to get the dealership of the Retail
Outlet as the offered land must be a suitable
land confirming to the specified criteria and
also satisfying other conditions with respect
to offering of land. Moreover, the company
reserve the right to cancel/withdraw the
advertisement, as it is sole discretion. (Para
22)

Furthermore, the Court find the reasoning given
by the Corporation to be valid and bona fide for
cancelling the subject location i.e., wrong
description and publication of the name of
district in the advertisement. The error in the
advertisement with respect to subject
location contravenes the principles of
fairness and transparency in the matter of
grant of dealership of the Retail Outlet.
(Para 24)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

_Characters 0–39,750 of 45,080. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39750 for what follows._

9 All Shishir Patel Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
833
with 12% interest incurred thereon from the
date of decree till the date of offer to
deposit. The writ petitioners had deposited
Rs.19,200
only
and
had
made
no
application to the court saying that they
were ready and willing to deposit security
for any amount which was further found
due on them. The Munsarim put up a report
that the amount that was offered by way of
application by the tenants was short by two
thousand rupees. The application should
have been rejected on this ground alone.

29. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having gone through the
order impugned, this Court is of the
opinion that learned District Judge has
correctly appreciated the fact as well as the
law, and there is no legal and factual
infirmity in the order impugned.

30. The writ petition is dismissed as
devoid of merit.

31. Costs made easy.
----------
(2021)09ILR A833
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 13940 of 2021

Shishir Patel ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sharad Pathak, Gaurav Shukla, Piyush
Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Kumar Sambhav

A.
Words
&
phrases
-
legitimate
expectation - The law is settled that a
legitimate expectation, even wehn made
out, does not always entitle the expectant
to a relief. Public interest, change in
policy, conduct of the expectant or any
other valid or bonafide reason given by
the decision-maker, may be sufficient to
negative the legitimate expectation. (Para
23)

In pursuance to an advertisement issued by
the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) for award of
Regular
Retail
Outlet
Dealership,
the
petitioner was given the opportunity to
provide
suitable
piece
of
land
at
the
advertised
location
vide
letter
dated
04.09.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner entered
into a lease agreement for 20 years on
rent/premium with a private person. The
Brochure classified the applicants into three
categories based on the land offered or land
not offered by them in the application. After
perusing the clauses of the brochure, The
Court is of the view that mere offer of land to
the IOC by the applicant may be in Group 1, 2
or 3 does not give rise to any legitimate
expectation to get the dealership of the Retail
Outlet as the offered land must be a suitable
land confirming to the specified criteria and
also satisfying other conditions with respect
to offering of land. Moreover, the company
reserve the right to cancel/withdraw the
advertisement, as it is sole discretion. (Para
22)

Furthermore, the Court find the reasoning given
by the Corporation to be valid and bona fide for
cancelling the subject location i.e., wrong
description and publication of the name of
district in the advertisement. The error in the
advertisement with respect to subject
location contravenes the principles of
fairness and transparency in the matter of
grant of dealership of the Retail Outlet.
(Para 24)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. St. of M.P. & anr. Vs Shri Ram Ragubhir
Prasad Agarwal & ors. (1979) 4 SCC 686

2. ICICI Bank & anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay & ors. (2005) 6 SCC 404

3. U.O.I. Vs Hindustan Development Corporation
(1993) 3 SCC 499

4. Ram Pravesh Singh Vs St.of Bihar (2006) 8
SCC 381

5. Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corp. Ltd.
& ors. Vs P.P. Suresh & ors. (2019) 9 SCC 710

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.S.G.
and Sri Kumar Sambhav, learned counsels
appearing for the opposite parties and
perused the material on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for
the following main relief:

"i) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 18.05.2021 issued by
opposite party No.4 for cancellation of
location between Kilometer Stone No. 45
and 48 at NH-128 Sultanpur Akbarpur
Road (Annexure No.1).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
order
dated
13.01.2021
(Annexure No.2).

iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamous
commanding the opposite parties to take
steps including issuing letter of intent to
petitioner for awarding of Retail Outlet
Dealership
on
location
in
between
Kilometer Stone No. 45 and 48, NH-128,
Sultanpur Akbarpur Road."

3. Facts of the case are that in
pursuance to an advertisement dated
24.11.2018 issued by the Indian Oil
Corporation (10C) for award of Regular
Retail Outlet Dealership, the petitioner had
applied for one of the locations, location
No. 268 between Kilometer Stone No. 45
and 48 at NH-128 Sultanpur-Akbarpur
Road, District Ambedkar Nagar which
district was erroneously published in the
advertisement,
correct
being
District
Sultanpur. As the petitioner had not offered
any land in terms of item No. 4 (v) of the
Brochure on selection of dealers for
Regular and Rural Retail outlets (in short
"the Brochure"), he was placed in Group 3
and one Mahima Gupta was selected to
whom a letter of intent dated 12.01.2019
was issued, but as the Initial Security
Deposit (ISD) and the documents for
further
selection
process
were
not
submitted her candidature was cancelled
and her name was placed in Group 3. The
petitioner was then given the opportunity to
provide suitable piece of land at the
advertised location/stretch vide letter dated
04.06.2019. To offer the land, the petitioner
entered into a lease agreement with one
Ram Charitra for 20 years and informed the
opposite
parties
through
e-mail
on
04.09.2019. However, the letter of intent
was not issued and vide communication
letter dated 13.01.2020 it was informed that
the subject location No. 268 was cancelled
against which the petitioner filed Writ
Petition No. 6632 (MB) of 2020: Shishir
Patel Vs. Union of India and others, but in
the
meantime,
as
the
Indian
Oil
Corporation vide letter dated 04.03.2020,
kept the letter dated 13.01.2020 in
abeyance, the writ petition was disposed of
finally
vide
order
dated
05.03.2020
providing that no further direction was
required, however, granting liberty to the
petitioner to assail the order, if any adverse
9 All Shishir Patel Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
835
action
was
taken
against
him.
On
29.01.2021 the petitioner submitted a
representation for decision being taken in
the matter and also filed Writ Petition No.
5366 (MB) of 2021, but as the opposite
party No.4-Deputy General Manager (RS)
Allahabad Divisional Office, by order dated
18.05.2021 decided the representation
giving the reasons for cancellation, the
petitioner challenging the orders dated
13.01.2020 and 18.05.2021 filed the
present petition.

4. Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the
cancellation of the location after more than
two and half years of the advertisement at
this belated stage is illegal and arbitrary.
The reason assigned for cancellation i.e. the
error in publication of district Ambedkar
Nagar, instead of correct district Sultanpur
was a typographical error and was not
material. He submitted that in pursuance of
the letter of the Indian Oil Corporation
dated 04.06. 2019 the petitioner having
entered into a lease agreement, to offer land
to the Indian Oil Corporation, acquired a
legitimate expectation of getting the Retial
Outlet dealership which could not, now, be
denied.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite
parties submitted that the order dated
18.05.2021 is speaking one and assigns the
reasons for cancellation of the location,
which is error in the publication of the name
of district Ambedkar Nagar, whereas the
location falls in district Sultanpur and on
noticing this mistake the subject location was
cancelled
and
communication
dated
13.01.2020 was made as the land should be in
the
advertised
area/stretch
and
wrong
description of the district must have deprived
many eligible prospective candidates from
participating in the selection process which is
required to be fair and transparent and under
the circumstances the plea of legitimate
expectation is not open to the petitioner.

6. We have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record.

7. The reason assigned in the order
dated 18.05.2021 for cancellation of the
subject location, is that it falls in district
Sultanpur and not in district Ambedkar
Nagar which was erroneously advertised. It
has not been disputed by the petitioner that
the subject location falls in district Sultanpur
but in the advertisement district Ambedkar
Nagar was published.

8. The procedure for selection, as
per Clause 14 of the Brochure, with
respect to the advertisement reads as
under:

"14. Selection Procedure

Selection will be basically made
through draw of lots or bidding process
depending upon the type of Retail outlet
site as defined in Clause 3. This will also
be indicated against each location in the
advertisement.

A. Draw of Lots

Selection through draw of lots
amongst eligible candidates will be made
for:

.Corporation
Owned
Dealer
operated outlets under Corpus Fund
Scheme ( CFS sites)

.Dealer Owned Dealer Operated
outlets ("B" / "DC" sites)
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

B. Bidding Process

Selection
through
Bidding
process will be made for Corporation
Owned Dealer Operated Sites ("A" / "CC"
sites) except for Corpus fund locations
mentioned above. However, in case of tie in
bid amount, selection will be made through
Draw of Lots amongst tied up bidders.

C Advertisement :

Advertisements will be released
in Newspapers intimating selection of RO
dealerships.

All details in this regard like
name of RO location, District, State,
Category etc. will be hosted in website
www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in

Guidelines
for
selection
(Brochure)
will
also
be
hosted
in
websitewww.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in

Brochure for Selection of Retail
Outlet dealerships can be down loaded
from
the
website
OMCS/
www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in free of
cost.

Interested applicants should go
through the Brochure carefully for filling
up their application form."

9. Thus Clause 14 C of the Brochure
clearly
provides
for
release
of
advertisements in newspapers intimating
selection of Retail Outlet dealership, filling
all the details like name of the Retail Outlet
location, district, State, Category etc.

10. T he error in the advertisement
with respect to the district in which the
subject location falls would also not be in
consonance with the principles of fairness
and transparency in the matter of grant of
dealership.

11. Clause 14C of the Brochure
provides that advertisements will be
"released". One of the meanings of
"release" is to publish. In the context of
release
of
an
advertisement
in
the
newspapers, it would mean the publication
of the advertisement in the newspapers. In
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Vs. Shri Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal
and others (1979) 4 SCC 686, it has been
held that "Contextually speaking, we are
satisfied that 'Publication' means more than
mere communication to concerned officials
or departments. To publish a news item is
to make known to people in general; "an
advising of the public or making known of
something to the public for a purpose". In
our view, the purpose of Section 3 animates
the meaning of the expression ''publish'.
''Publicaiton' is "the act of publishing
anything; offering it to public notice, or
rendering
it
accessible
to
public
scrutiny......an advising of the public;
making known of something to them for a
purpose".

12. "Advertisement" in common
parlance means to make publicly known an
information by some device and to draw or
attract
attention
of
public/individual
concerned to such information. In ICICI
Bank
and
another
Vs.
Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and
others (2005) 6 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, held that an advertisement is a matter
that draws attention of the public or segment
of public to a product, service, person,
organization or line of conduct in a manner
calculated to promote or oppose directly or
indirectly that product, service, person,
9 All Shishir Patel Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
837
organization or line of conduct intended to
promote sale or use of product or range of
products. Paragraphs, 14 and 15 of the ICICI
Bank (supra) are quoted as under:

"14. ........................The dictionary
definitions of the word 'advertisement' are as
under :-

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY,
8TH EDITION

Advertising -1. The action of
drawing the public's attention to something to
promote its sale. 2 The business of producing
and circulating advertisements

LAW
AND
COMMERCIAL
DICTIONARY

Advertisement - Notice given in a
manner designed to attract public attention.
Edwards v. Lubbock Country, Information
communicated to the public, or to an
individual concerned, as by handbills,
newspaper, television, bill-boards, radio.
First Nat. Corporation v. Perrine.

NEW
ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BRITTANICA VOLUME-I

Advertising.- the techniques used to
bring products. services, opinions, or causes
to public notice for the purpose of persuading
the public to respond in a certain way toward
what is advertised. Most advertising involves
promoting a good that is for sale, but similar
methods are used to encourage people to
drive safely, to support various charities, or
to vote for political candidates, among many
other examples.

COLLINS DICTIONARY OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Advertisement- any public notice, as
a printed display in a newspaper, short film on
television, announcement on radio, etc designed
to sell goods, publicize an event, etc.

Advertising -(1) the action or
practice of drawing public attention to goods,
services, events etc., as by the distribution of
printed notices, broadcasting. etc. 2) the
business that specializes in creating such
publicity,
3)
advertisements
collectively:
publicity.

THE CHAMBERS DICTIONARY

Advertisement
-
the
act
of
advertising; a public notice with the purpose of
informing and / or changing public attitudes
and behaviour; a short performance recorded
for radio, T.V. etc. to advertise goods or
services; news.

15. An advertisement is a matter that
draws attention of the public or segment of
public
to
a
product,
service,
person,
organization or line of conduct in a manner
calculated to promote or oppose directly or
indirectly
that
product,
service,
person,
organization or line of conduct intended to
promote sale or use of product or range of
products. An advertisement is an information
that producer provides about its products or
services. An advertisement tries to get
consumers to buy a product or a service. An
advertisement is generally of goods and
services and is an information intended for the
potential customers and not a mere display of
the name of the company unless the same
happens to be a trade mark or trade name."

13. Thus, release of advertisement in
newspaper is not an empty formality. The
purpose is to make publicly known an
information and to attract the attention of
the public/individual concerned to such
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information for the purposes for which
such
advertisement
is
published
or
released. In the context of the selection for
the Retail Outlet Dealership, the purpose of
the advertisement is to make publicly
known that at a particular location the
dealership of Retail Outlet is to be granted,
inviting and attracting the attention of the
public to such information to enable the
willing persons to apply for the same. The
information, therefore, must be correct and
complete.
Incomplete
information
or
incorrect information defeats the object of
the publication as in such a case the
attention of the public shall not be drawn to
the correct information which may result in
depriving
many
willing
and
eligible
persons to respond to the information
published.

14. We now proceed to consider the
submission of the petitioner's counsel based
on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
His submission is that the petitioner entered
into lease agreement with a private person
to offer the land to the Corporation in
pursuance of letter of the Corporation dated
04.06.2019 and once, the petitioner, acting
upon the said letter, entered into twenty
years lease agreement with the private
person, the petitioner cannot be denied the
dealership of Retail Outlet.

15. In order to consider the above
submission we proceed to consider the
doctrine of legitimate expectation and
whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioner had any legitimate
expectation based upon which the relief as
prayed can be granted to the petitioner.

16. The doctrine of legitimate
expectation has been elaborately discussed;
its dimensions explained and law laid down
in the leading case of Union of India Vs.
Hindustan
Development
Corporation
reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499 followed in
the subsequent judgments, We would refer
to the Case of Ram Pravesh Singh Vs.
State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381 in which
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under in paragraphs 15 to 20 :

"15.
What
is
legitimate
expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal
right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief
or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a
promise or established practice. The term
'established practice' refers to a regular,
consistent predictable and certain conduct,
process or activity of the decision-making
authority. The expectation should be
legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and
valid. Any expectation which is based on
sporadic or casual or random acts, or
which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid
cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not
being a right, it is not enforceable as such.
It is a concept fashioned by courts, for
judicial review of administrative action. It
is procedural in character based on the
requirement of a higher degree of fairness
in administrative action, as a consequence
of
the
promise
made,
or
practice
established. In short, a person can be said
to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a
particular treatment, if any representation
or promise is made by an authority, either
expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and
consistent past practice of the authority
gives room for such expectation in the
normal course. As a ground for relief, the
efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its
slot is just above 'fairness in action' but far
below 'promissory estoppel'. It may only
entitle an expectant : (a) to an opportunity
to show cause before the expectation is
dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the
cause for denial. In appropriate cases,
courts may grant a direction requiring the
9 All Shishir Patel Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
839
Authority to follow the promised procedure
or established practice. A legitimate
expectation, even when made out, does not
always entitle the expectant to a relief.
Public interest, change in policy, conduct of
the expectant or any other valid or
bonafide reason given by the decisionmaker, 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 an
authority, on which such established
practice has a bearing, or by someone who
has a recognized legal relationship with the
authority. A total stranger unconnected
with the authority or a person who had no
previous dealings with the authority and
who has not entered into any transaction or
negotiations with the authority, cannot
invoke
the
doctrine
of
legitimate
expectation, merely on the ground that the
authority has a general obligation to act
fairly.

16. In Union of India V.
Hindustan
Development
Corporation
[1993 (3) SCC 499], this Court explained
the nature and scope of the doctrine of
'legitimate expectation' thus : (SCC P. 540,
para 28)

"For
legal
purposes,
the
expectation cannot be the same as
anticipation. It is different from a wish, a
desire or a hope nor can it amount to a
claim or demand on the ground of a right.
However earnest and sincere a wish, a
desire or a hope may be and however
confidently one may look to them to be
fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount
to an assertable expectation and a mere
disappointment does not attract legal
consequences. A pious hope even leading to
a moral obligation cannot amount to a
legitimate expectation. 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. Again it is
distinguishable from a genuine expectation.
Such expectation should be justifiably
legitimate and protectable. Every such
legitimate expectation does not by itself
fructify into a right and therefore it does
not amount to a right in the conventional
sense."

[Emphasis supplied]

17. This Court also explained the
remedies flowing by applying the principle
of legitimate expectation : (SCC pp. 54647, para 33)

"it is generally agreed that legitimate
expectation gives the applicant sufficient
locus standi for judicial review and 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
crystallized 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. In other words
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. Therefore even if
substantive protection of such expectation
is contemplated that does not grant an
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absolute right to a particular person. It
simply ensures the circumstances in which
that
expectation
may
be
denied
or
restricted. A case of legitimate expectation
would arise when a body by representation
or by past practice aroused expectation
which it would be within its powers to fulfil.
The protection is limited to that extent and
a judicial review can be within those limits.
But as discussed above a person who bases
his claim on the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, in the first instance, must
satisfy that there is a foundation and thus
has locus standi to make such a claim. In
considering the same several factors which
give rise to such legitimate expectation
must be present. The decision taken by the
authority must be found to be arbitrary,
unreasonable and not taken in public
interest. If it is a question of policy, even by
way of change of old policy, the courts
cannot interfere with a decision. In a given
case whether there are such facts and
circumstances giving rise to a legitimate
expectation, it would primarily be a
question of fact. If these tests are satisfied
and if the court is satisfied that a case of
legitimate expectation is made out then the
next question would be whether failure to
give an opportunity of hearing before the
decision
affecting
such
legitimate
expectation is taken, has resulted in failure
of justice and whether on that ground the
decision should be quashed. If that be so
then what should be the relief is again a
matter which depends on several factors."
(emphasis supplied).

18. In Punjab Communication
Ltd. v. Union of India- 1999 (4) SCC 727,
this Court observed : (SCC pp. 729-30)

"The
principle
of
legitimate
expectation is still at a stage of evolution.
The principle is at the root of the rule of
law and requires regularity, predictability
and certainty in the Governments dealings
with the public The procedural part of it
relates to a representation that a hearing or
other
appropriate
procedure
will
be
afforded before the decision is made."

"However, the more important
aspect is whether the decision maker can
sustain the change in policy by resort to
Wednesbury principles of rationality or
whether the court can go into the question
whether the decision-maker has properly
balanced the legitimate expectation as
against the need for a change.. In sum, this
means that the judgment whether public
interest overrides the substantive legitimate
expectation of individuals will be for the
decision-maker who has made the change
in the policy. The choice of the policy is for
the decision-maker and not for the court.
The legitimate substantive expectation
merely permits the court to find out if the
change in policy which is the cause for
defeating the legitimate expectation is
irrational or perverse or one which no
reasonable person could have made."

19.
Recently,
a
Constitution
Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1]
referred to the circumstances in which the
doctrine of legitimate expectation can be
invoked thus : (SCC pp.38-39, para 46)

"The doctrine can be invoked if
the
decisions
of
the
administrative
authority affect the person by depriving
him of some benefit or advantage which
either (i) he had 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 there have been
communicated
to
him
some
rational
grounds for withdrawing it on which he has
9 All Shishir Patel Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
841
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 reasons for
contending that they should not be
withdrawn."

20. Another Constitution Bench,
referring to the doctrine, observed thus in
Confederation
of
Ex-servicemen
Associations vs. Union of India: (SCC pp.
416-17, paras 33 & 35)

"33.......No doubt, the doctrine
has an important place in the development
of Administrative Law and particularly law
relating to 'judicial review'. Under the said
doctrine, a person may have reasonable or
legitimate expectation of being treated in a
certain way by an administrative authority
even though he has no right in law to
receive the benefit. In such situation, if a
decision is taken by an administrative
authority adversely affecting his interests,
he may have justifiable grievance in the
light of the fact of continuous receipt of the
benefit, legitimate expectation to receive
the benefit or privilege which he has
enjoyed all throughout. Such expectation
may arise either from the express promise
or from consistent practice which the
applicant
may
reasonably
expect
to
continue."

35. "In such cases, therefore, the
Court may not insist an administrative
authority to act judicially but may still
insist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based
on the principle that good administration
demands observance of reasonableness and
where it has adopted a particular practice
for a long time even in absence of a
provision of law, it should adhere to such
practice without depriving its citizens of the
benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised."

17. Recently, in Kerala State
Beverages
(M
and
M)
Corporation
Limited and others Vs. P.P. Suresh and
others (2019) 9SCC710
the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under in paragraphs
15 to 20 and 23 to 25, which are being
reproduced as under:-

"B. Legitimate Expectation

14. .........................

15. The principle of legitimate
expectation has been recognized by this
Court in Union of India v. Hindustand
Development Corporation & Ors. If the
promise made by an authority is clear,
unequivocal and unambiguous, a person
can claim that the authority in all fairness
should not act contrary to the promise.

16. M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
elaborately
elucidated
on
legitimate
expectation in Punjab Communications
Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors . He
referred (at SCC pp. 741-42, para 27) to
the judgment in Council of Civil Service
Unions and Ors. v. Minister for the Civil
Service in which Lord Diplock had
observed that for a legitimate expectation
to arise, the decisions of the administrative
authority must affect the person by
depriving him of some benefit or advantage
which,

" 27.......(i) he had 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 there
has been communicated to him some
rational grounds for withdrawing it on
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 reasons for
contending that they should not be
withdrawn.

17. Rao, J. observed in this
case,
that
the
procedural
part
of
legitimate
expectation
relates
to
a
representation that a hearing or other
appropriate procedure will be afforded
before
the
decision
is
made.
The
substantive part of the principle is that if
a 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.

18. It has been held by R. V.
Raveendran, J. in Ram Pravesh Singh v.
State of Bihar that legitimate expectation is
not a legal right. Not being a right, it is not
enforceable as such. It may entitle an
expectant (SCC p. 391, para 15)

"(a) to an opportunity to show cause
before the expectation is dashed;

or

(b) to an explanation as to the cause of
denial. In appropriate cases, the Courts
may grant a direction requiring the
authority to follow the promised procedure
or established practice.

Substantive
Legitimate
Expectation

19. An expectation entertained by
a person may not be found to be legitimate
due to the existence of some countervailing
consideration
of
policy
or
law.
Administrative policies may change with
changing circumstances, including changes
in the political complexion of governments.
The liberty to make such changes is
something
that
is
inherent
in
our
constitutional form of government.

20. The decision makers' freedom
to change the policy in public interest
cannot be fettered by applying the principle
of substantive legitimate expectation. So
long as the Government does not act in an
arbitrary or in an unreasonable manner,
the change in policy does not call for
interference by judicial review on the
ground of a legitimate expectation of an
individual or a group of individuals being
defeated.

21. .......................

Procedural
Legitimate
Expectation

22. ....................

23. In case of a complaint that
an administrative authority has reneged
from a promise without giving an
opportunity of hearing which was the past
practice, a claim of legitimate expectation
can be raised. In other words, if the policy
or practice was to give an opportunity
before the benefit is withdrawn, the noncompliance of such a practice would result
in defeating the legitimate expectation of
an individual or group of individuals. In
Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen
Shiu, the Privy Council was concerned with
a dispute relating to an assertion of
legitimate expectation of hearing, by an
9 All Shishir Patel Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
843
illegal immigrant. The Respondent in that
case entered Hong Kong illegally and
remained for a long period of time without
being detected. He became part owner of a
factory which employed several workers. A
change
in
immigration
policy
was
announced whereby illegal immigrants
would be interviewed in due course, but no
guarantee was given that they would not be
removed from Hong Kong. The Respondent
approached the immigration authorities for
interview and after being interviewed he
was detained until a removal order was
made by the Director of Immigration. His
appeal was dismissed by the Immigration
Tribunal. The Court of Appeal of Hong
Kong granted the Respondent an order of
prohibition till an opportunity was given to
him to explain the circumstances of his case
before the Director. The Appeal filed by the
Attorney General of Hong Kong was
dismissed by the Privy Council. The only
question raised by the Respondent in the
Appeal was whether he was entitled to have
a fair inquiry under common law, before a
removal order was made against him.
Without
expressing
any
opinion on
violation of principles of natural justice,
the right of hearing of the Respondent in
the peculiar facts of the case was
adjudicated upon. It was held that the
Respondent had a ''legitimate expectation'
of being accorded a hearing before an
order of removal was passed.

24. We have referred to the above
judgment to demonstrate that there can be
situation where the very claim made can be
with regard to an opportunity not being
given before withdrawing a promise which
results
in
defeating
the
''legitimate
expectation'.

25. The principle of procedural
legitimate expectation would apply to cases
where a promise is made and is withdrawn
without affording an opportunity to the
person affected. The imminent requirement
of fairness in administrative action is to
give an opportunity to the person who is
deprived of a past benefit. In our opinion,
there is an exception to the said rule. If an
announcement is made by the Government
of a policy conferring benefit on a large
number of people, but subsequently, due to
overriding public interest, the benefits that
were announced earlier are withdrawn, it is
not
expedient
to
provide
individual
opportunities to such innominate number of
persons. In other words, in such cases, an
opportunity to each individual to explain
the circumstances of his case need not be
given. In Union of India v. Hindustan
Devlopment Corporation and Ors. (supra)
it was held that in cases involving an
interest based on legitimate expectation,
the Court will not interfere on grounds of
procedural fairness and natural justice, if
the deciding authority has been allotted a
full range of choice and the decision is
taken fairly and objectively."

18. In view of the aforesaid, some of
the
following principles
of
law
on
legitimate expectation may be summarized
as under:-

(1) Legitimate expectation is an
expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy,
that may ordinarily flow from a promise or
established practice. The term 'established
practice' refers to a regular, consistent
predictable and certain conduct, process or
activity of the decision-making authority.
The expectation should be legitimate, that
is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any
expectation which is based on sporadic or
casual or random acts, or which is
unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be
a legitimate expectation. The expectation
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be the same as anticipation. It is
different from a wish, a desire or a hope,
however earnest and sincere a wish, a
desire or a hope may be.

(2) A person can be said to have a
'legitimate expectation' of a particular
treatment, if any representation or promise
is made by an authority, either expressly or
impliedly, or if the regular and consistent
past practice of the authority gives room for
such expectation in the normal course.

(3) It is not a legal right and as
such a legitimate expectation, even if made,
does not entitle the expectant to relief
straightaway
from
the
administrative
authorities.

(4) It is procedural in character
based on the requirement of a higher degree
of fairness in administrative action, as a
consequence of the promise made, or
practice established.

(5) Legitimate expectation if
made may only entitle an expectant : (a) to
an opportunity to show cause before the
expectation is dashed; or (b) to an
explanation as to the cause for denial.

(6) However, the requirement of
fairness in administrative action by giving
an opportunity of hearing to the expectant
is not in all cases but is where such person
is deprived of a past benefit.

(7) If some policy is announced
conferring benefit on a large number of
people but is subsequently withdrawn or
changed due to overriding public interest,
an opportunity to each individual to explain
the circumstances of his case need not be
given.

(8) Public interest, change in
policy, conduct of the expectant or any
other valid or bonafide reason given by the
decision-maker, may be sufficient to
negative the legitimate expectation, even if
made out.

(9) So long as the Government
does not act in an arbitrary or in an
unreasonable
manner
interference
by
judicial review on the ground of legitimate
expectation is not called for. The Court will
not interfere on grounds of procedural
fairness and natural justice, if the deciding
authority has been allotted a full range of
choice and the decision is taken fairly and
objectively.

(10) A person who bases his
claim on the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, in the first instance, must
satisfy that there is a foundation and thus
he has locus standi to make such a claim.
The decision taken by the authority must be
found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not
taken in public interest.

(11) Whether there are such facts
and
circumstances
giving
rise
to
a
legitimate expectation, it would primarily
be a question of fact in each case.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
principles on legitimate expectation, we
now proceed to consider the petitioner's
case to determine if the petitioner can be
said to have legitimate expectation.

20. The only ground on which the
petitioner claims legitimate expectation is
that he entered into a lease agreement for
20 years on rent/premium with a private
person pursuant to the Corporation's letter
dated 04.09.2019 asking him to offer
suitable land, and if such a letter had not
9 All Shishir Patel Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
845
been given, he would not have entered into
the lease agreement.

21. So far as the offering of land by the
applicant for Retail Outlet dealership is
concerned, the Brochure provided that all the
applicants meeting the eligibility criteria will
qualify for further selection process. Clause 4
of the Brochure provided for the eligibility
criteria
for
individual
applicantsproprietorship/partnership. Sub-Clause (v) of
Clause 4 deals with the land (applicable to all
categories). It provides that the applicants
would be classified into three groups based
on the land offered or land not offered by
them in the application form. The applicants
having suitable piece of land in the advertised
location/area either by way of ownership/long
term lease for a period of minimum 19 years
11 months or as advertised by the
Corporation were classified in Group 1. The
applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable
piece of land for purchase or long term lease
for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months
or as advertised by the Corporation were
classified in Group 2 and the applicants who
had not offered the land were classified in
Group 3. The applicants in Group 3 would be
processed/advised to offer land, only in case
no eligible applicant is found or no applicant
gets selected under Group 1 and 2.