DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

Introduction

Introduction Of The Topic

Legitimate expectations is the doctrine which means the reasonable
expectation by a person being treated in a certain way by the public
authorities on account of consistent practice or an express promise made
by the concerned authority. This doctrine is traced back to the English
Law which was taken as a ground for judicial review in the administrative
law to protect the procedural and substantive interest when a public
authority abolish representation made to a person.

Doctrine of legitimate expectation is evolved as the principle of natural

justice. lt is also related to the field of public law. As the doctrine imposes
a duty on the public authority when he makes a promise either expressly
or impliedly which then results in expectation by an individual. The
doctrine of legitimate expectation is to keep a check on public authority
his duty and to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors
relating to legitimate expectation. It also imposes the duty on the public
authority not to act in defecting the legitimate expectation without having
some reason for public policy to justify doing.

As the doctrine imposes a duty on the public authority when he makes a

promise either expressly or impliedly results in expectation by an
individual. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is to keep a check on
public authority his duty and to act fairly by taking into consideration all
relevant factors relating to legitimate expectation. It also imposes the
duty on the public authority not to act in defecting the legitimate
expectation without having some reason for public policy to justify doing.

Definition

Meaning

MEANING
Legitimate Expectation means that a person may have a reasonable
expectation of being treated in a certain way by administrative authorities
owing to some consistent practice in the past or an express promise made
by the concerned authority. According to this doctrine, a public authority
can be made accountable in lieu of a legitimate expectation. Thus, the
doctrine of Legitimate Expectation pertains to the relationship between an
individual and a public authority.
"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." 1

Therefore, it can be said that this doctrine is a form of a check on the

administrative authority. When a representation has been made, the
doctrine of legitimate expectation imposes, in essence, a duty on public
authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors
relating to such legitimate expectation.2 It also adds a duty on the public
authority not to act in a way to defeat the legitimate expectation without
having some reason of public policy to justify its doing so. 3

Legal provision

Legal Research
A case of M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997) 7 SCC 592. lt was
observed that this doctrine of Legitimate Expectations operates in the
domain of public law, and is not merely a procedural right subsumed
within the requirement of natural justice or elementary canons of fair play.
It constitutes a substantive, enforceable and protectable interest as a
facet of Article 14 itself. The doctrine applies a fortiori and proprio vigore
to cases of contract and renewals thereof.

ln the Constitution of India Article 14 reviews the principle of natural

justice which includes the right to hearing which has its ground for
legitimate expectation. lt is not subject to individual determination and its
unreasonableness is necessary to know whether there was a denial of
legitimate expectation. Article 14 emphasize on reasonable or legitimate
expectation for every individual to treat fairly in the relationship between
the individual and the public authority.

Illustration
Concept

Concept of Legitimate Expectation

Doctrine of ‘Legitimate Expectation’ is one amongst several tools

incorporated by the Court to review administrative action. This doctrine
pertains to the relationship between an individual and a public authority.
According to this doctrine, the public authority can be made accountable
in lieu of a ‘legitimate expectation’. The doctrine of legitimate expectation
has an important place in developing law of judicial review.

The doctrine is that 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. Even in cases
where he has no legal right, he may still have a legitimate expectation of
receiving the benefit or privilege. Such expectation may arise from a
promise or from the existence of a regular practice which the applicant
can reasonably expect to continue and be adopted in his case also. If his
expectations are belied, the Court or the Tribunal may intervene and
protect him by applying principles that are analogous to the principles of
natural justice and fair play in action. The principle underlying legitimate
expectation is based on Article 14 of the Constitution and the rule of
fairness.

The Legitimate Expectations can be of two types viz: Procedural

Legitimate Expectations and Substantive Legitimate Expectations.

WHO CAN INVOKE THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION?

The doctrine of legitimate expectation, based on established practice, 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.4 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. 5

LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION MAY ARISE:

a. if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or

b. because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant
can reasonably expect to continue;
c. such an expectation must be reasonable.6

Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due

consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation
 of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of
fact in each case.7 Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined
not according to the claimant's perception but in the larger public interest
wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would
otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. 8 A bona
fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy
the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. 9

EXPECTATION DOES NOT MEAN

The expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a
wish, a desire or a hope nor does 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 assert-able 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. 10

Therefore, legitimacy of an expectation can only be inferred if it is based

on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in
regular and natural system.

Case Laws

In India this doctrine was first applied in the case of State of Kerala v. K.G.
Madhavan Pillai 9 [1988] 4 SCC 6690 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that a plaintiff had a right to sue for breach of contract. In this case,
the respondents were given permission to open a new aided school and
improve the current ones, but that permission was put on hold 15 days
later by an order. The Respondents filed an appeal against this order on
the grounds that it violated their rights to due process of law. The
Supreme Court concluded that Respondents had a legitimate expectation
of protection under the sanction, and that the second order was contrary
to the natural justice.

This doctrine was applied by the Apex Court in several cases, inter-alia,

 Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India [1992] 4 SCC 477
 Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [1993] 3 SCC 499
 M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. [1997] 7 SCC 592
 National Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan [1998] 7 SCC 66

In Madras City Wine Merchants v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 5 SCC

509 the Supreme Court postulated circumstances which may lead to the
formation of legitimate expectations namely—

 If there was some explicit promise or representation made by the

administrative body.
 That such a promise was clear and unambiguous.
 The existence of a consistent practice in the past which the person can
reasonably expect to operate in the same way.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has Observed in the case of Food Corpn. of
India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries JT 1992 (6) SC 259 as under:

“There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority

possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty
to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ‘fair play in action’. Due
observance of this obligation as part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in
his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities with this element
forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all
State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness is a state
action, it is therefore, necessary to consider and given due weight to the
reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected
by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may
amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be
exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not
completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is
unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review.”

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
This doctrine first found its mention in the case of State of Kerala vs.
Madhavan Pillai.11 In this case the government had issued a sanction to
the respondents to open a new aided school and to upgrade the existing
ones. However, after 15 days, a direction was issued to keep the sanction
in abeyance. This action was challenged on the ground that the same
violated the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the sanction order created legitimate expectations in the respondents
which was violated by the second order as the same was without following
the principles of natural justice which is sufficient to vitiate the
administrative order.

This doctrine was applied in another case 12 where the government had
issued a notification notifying the areas where slum scheme would be
introduced. However, the notification was subsequently amended, and
some areas earlier included were left out. The court held that when a
notification is made rescinding the earlier notifications without hearing the
affected parties, it is clear violation of the principle of natural justice. 13 The
earlier notification had raised legitimate expectation in the people living in
an area which has been subsequently left out and hence legitimate
expectation cannot be denied without a fair hearing.
In GNCT of Delhi v. Naresh Kumar14, the Delhi High Court summarized the
legal position with regard to legitimate expectation as follows:

 Firstly, mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may

not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider
and give due weightage to it may render the decision arbitrary.
 Secondly, legitimate expectation may arise if (a) there is an express
promise given by a public authority; or (b) because of acceptance of
a regular practice, a claimant can reasonably expect it to continue;
and (c) such expectation may be reasonable.
 Thirdly, for a legitimate expectation to arise, the decision of
administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of
some benefit or advantage which he had in the past been
permitted, by the decision maker, to enjoy and which he can
legitimately expect to be permitted to continue, until some rational
grounds for withdrawing it have been communicated to him.
 Fourthly, if the authority proposes to defeat a person's legitimate
expectation, it should afford him an opportunity to make a
representation in the matter.
 Fifthly, the doctrine of legitimate expectation 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.

In the case of Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors.15, wherein a new criterion of allotment was given by the
memorandum impugned therein, prior to which priority in the matter of
allotment to Group Housing Societies had all along been made with
reference to the date of registration. The court held that since prior to the
new guidelines contained in the memorandum of January 20, 1990, the
principle of allotment had always been on the basis of date of registration
and not the date of approval of the list of members, the Group Housing
Societies were entitled to legitimate expectation of following consistent
past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have
any legal right in private law to receive such treatment.

Critical Analysis

Comparative Analysis

Suggestions

Suggestion
The need for this doctrine to have an independent existence. The doctrine
of legitimate expectations very well leads to a procedural right that is
right to judicial review in India but the substantive aspect of the doctrine
can be said to be in a budding stage. There has been hesitance amongst
academicians as A.K.Srivastava, Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
(1995to whether the doctrine should apply to substantive rights at all.

It has been argued that application of the doctrine to substantive rights

might result in failure of separation of powers and would qualify as
overstepping of Judiciary. Therefore this doctrine has to be applied.

Conclusion

CONCLUSION
The necessity for application of the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation or by
past practice or conduct stirred an expectation which would be within its
powers to accomplish unless some superseding public interest comes in
the way. However, a person who centers his claim on the doctrine of
legitimate expectation, in the first instance, has to satisfy that he has
relied on the said representation and the rejection of that expectation has
worked to his detriment. The court would interfere only if the decision
taken by the authority was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross
abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice and not taken
in public interest. But a claim based on mere legitimate expectation
without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke this
principle.

Conclusion
The doctrine of legitimate expectations has undoubtedly gained
significance in the Indian Courts, giving locus standi to a person who may
or may not have a direct legal right. lt is a welcome addition to the armory
of the courts ensuring that discretions are exercised fairly. The phrase
legitimate expectation, which is much in vogue, must not be allowed to
collapse into an inchoate justification for judicial intervention