AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration and also for marketing granites available in the survey site. According to the petitioner, the respondent is only a marketing agency of minerals in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, who became a successful bidder, vide order, dated March 12, 2008, has been granted a contract to raise the minerals from quarry site by deploying machineries and to hand over the same to the marketing agency, viz., TAMIN Limited. Even as per the contract entered into between TAMIN and the writ petitioner, the period expires on March 12, 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent has promised that even after the expiry of the lease period, the contract to raise the minerals would be continued and on that basis, the petitioner had invested more than one crore for engaging the machineries for scientific raising of granite blocks. When the petitioner legitimately expected that the assurance made by the first respondent would be honoured, the impugned order has been passed, violating the principles of promissory estoppel. It is the further submission of the petitioner, even before the expiry of the period, i.e., March 12, 2011, he has made a request on February 28, 2011 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the Chairman and Managing Director, TAMIN is final and not open for any challenge by the raising agent for want of notice, etc., in the event of cancellation of this raising agency for any violation of these conditions. As per the agreement stated supra, the period of raising agency expires on March 12, 2011. Though the petitioner has contended that an assurance has been given by TAMIN Limited stating that the lease would be extended on such term as agreed to by TAMIN Limited, there is no material to substantiate such contention. Principle of promissory estoppel would apply only if there is any specific promise made by one party, based on which, any further action is taken by the other causing hardship to the latter. In this context, it is useful to refer some of the decisions of the Supreme Court. In Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority reported in [1992] 85 STC 432 (SC); [1992] 2 SCC 683, this court held that a finance minister's statement referring to a proposal to continue the grant of exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of ten years is merely a budget proposal which could not give rise to any right to the parties and it did not amount to a dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dural as well as substantive rights. A person invoking the doctrine must be aggrieved and should have altered his position acting upon the State action/inaction. Whether or not expectation is legitimate is a question of fact. Legitimacy of expectation has to be determined keeping in view of the larger public interest and not according to the claimant's perception. The apex court further held that, "The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the court has some person aggrieved either, (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b) 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 has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn. Indian s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied by the High Court. No case of promissory estoppel has been made out on the facts of this case. In that view of the matter, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. . ." In a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. K.K. Mohandas reported in [2007] 6 SCC 484, the Supreme Court held that there cannot be a case of promissory estoppel, merely on the basis of the speech made by the Minister in the Assembly of a proposal to ban sale of toddy in the State. In the above case, the petitioners claimed that the concerned minister had given an assurance in a TV channel. No order or direction has been issued by the Government, pursuant to the alleged speech said to have been made. In the absence of any express promise held out by the concerned, it is not open to the petitioners to harp on the principle of promissory estoppel. In Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation v. Kashi Vishwanath Steels Limited reported in [2010] 6 SCC 738, at para 27, the apex court held that it is trite that before a party can rely upon on the doctrine of promissory estoppel it must make a specific averment and place material on record to demonstrate that a promi....