TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decisions on Promissory Estoppel</h1> <h3>State of Arunachal Pradesh Versus Nezone Law House, Assam</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court. The ... Whether to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and bald expressions without any supporting material to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine? Issues Involved:1. Promissory Estoppel2. Legitimate Expectation3. Interpretation of Article 166 of the Constitution4. Admissibility of Disputed Documents in Writ Petitions5. Reasonableness and Arbitrariness of State ActionsDetailed Analysis:1. Promissory EstoppelThe respondent claimed that the State Government had promised to purchase 500 sets of 'North Eastern Region Local Acts and Rules.' The High Court initially ruled in favor of the respondent, applying the principle of promissory estoppel. However, the Supreme Court found that the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not applicable to the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that promissory estoppel requires a clear, sound, and positive foundation in the petition, which was lacking in this case. The Court cited precedents, including Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. and Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., to underline that promissory estoppel does not create a cause of action where none existed before.2. Legitimate ExpectationThe respondent also argued that the State's promise created a legitimate expectation. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, noting that legitimate expectation cannot be based on mere anticipation but must be founded on the sanction of law. The Court referred to cases like Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. and Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and others to explain that legitimate expectation must be reasonable and cannot be used to challenge policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or unreasonable.3. Interpretation of Article 166 of the ConstitutionThe Supreme Court examined whether the alleged promise by the Law Minister constituted an executive action under Article 166 of the Constitution. Article 166 mandates that all executive actions of the State Government be taken in the name of the Governor. The Court noted that the document relied upon was merely a departmental note and not an official order. The Court cited R. Chitralekha etc. v. State of Mysore and Ors., emphasizing that compliance with Article 166 is essential for any government order to be valid.4. Admissibility of Disputed Documents in Writ PetitionsThe appellant contended that the writ petition should not be entertained as it was based on a disputed document. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that when a claim is founded on a disputed document, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. The Court highlighted that the document in question was a departmental note requiring approval from various departments, and there were factual disputes regarding whether the intended purchase was of volumes or sets.5. Reasonableness and Arbitrariness of State ActionsThe Supreme Court discussed the principles of reasonableness and arbitrariness in state actions. The Court cited G. B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council and Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. to emphasize that state actions must be informed by reason and not be arbitrary. The Court found that the High Court had overlooked the procedural requirements and the need for departmental approvals, thereby acting unreasonably.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court. The doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were deemed inapplicable, and the disputed document was not sufficient to warrant a writ petition. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
