STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH versus NEZONE LAW HOUSE, ASSAM

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 01-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 948 
> 
A 
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
NEZONE LAW HOUSE, ASSAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 2092 of 2002) 
B 
APRIL 1, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Evidence Act, 1872; s. 115/Constitution of India, 1950; 
Articles 14, 166 and 299: 
c 
Promissory estoppel against State - State allegedly 
promising to purchase certain number of sets of Acts and 
Rules - Later denied to purchase - Promissory estoppel and 
legitimate expectation - Applicability of - Held: Not applicable 
- Since the view of several Government departments involved, 
D the question of any oral view/promise expressed by Minister 
not relevant - Promise as allegedly made not supported by 
any consideration, therefore, not actionable - Doctrine of 
promissory estoppel could be evoked by the Courts on the 
principle of equity to avoid injustice when clear, sound and 
E positive foundation laid in the petition itself - A denial of 
legitimate expectation amounts to denial of right guaranteed 
or is arbitrary/discriminatory/unfair/biased/gross misuse of 
power or is violative of principles of natural justice, and it could 
be challenged in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution - But a 
F 
claim based on mere legitimate expectation cannot ipso facto 
give a right to invoke these principles. 
-~ 
Doctrines: Doctrine of Promissory estoppel and doctrine 
of legitimate expectation - Applicability of. 
G 
Administrative policy of GovfJrnment - Formulation and 
evaluation by Courts - Scope of - Discussed. 
Respondent, a law-books seller, filed a writ petition 
• 
against the appellant-State for direction to maintain and 
keep the promise made by them with the respondent for 
H 
948 
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH v. NEZONE LAW 
949 
HOUSE, ASSAM 
" 
supply of 500 sets of certain Acts and Rules. The petition A 
was allowed by the High Court holding that the principles 
of promissory estoppel applied. Appeal filed thereagainst 
by the State was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that the Single Judge and 
B 
". 
~ 
the Division Bench of the High Court clearly overlooked 
the position in law that when a claim is founded on 
disputed document, the writ petition is not to be 
,, 
entertained; that there was no question of any promissory 
estoppel involved. The document relied upon by the c 
respondent was a departmental note, the same need 
approval of the various departments; and that the books 
were not useful for the judicial officers and, therefore, there 
was no need for placing any order. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
" 
HELD: 1.1 The doctrines of promissory estoppel and 
legitirnate expectation were not applicable to the facts of 
1 
the case. (Para - 6) [956-C-D] 
Central London Properly Trust Ltd. vs. High Trees House 
E 
Ltd. (1947) 1 KB 130 and Combe vs. Bombe (1951) 2 KB 
215 - referred to. 
1.2 The document relied upon by the respondent and 
the High Court refer to some oral expression of desire by 
F 
the then Law Minister of the State. When the view of 
_, 
several departments were involved the question of any 
• 
oral view being expressed by a Minister is really not 
relevant. Further the document relied upon was nothing 
but a departmental note which itself clearly indicated that G 
the view of various departments/Ministries were to be 
taken and their concurrence was to be obtained. Apart 
from that, there was some factual dispute as to whether 
the intended purchase was of volumes or sets. There is 
·conceptual di,1'erent between the two. The books were H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A not even printed at the relevant point of time. The High 
Court has noticed only one volume had been printed. 
Further the need for the purchase of the books for the 
judicial officers was to be assessed in consultation with 
the High Court. The Law Minister could not have, without 
B taking the view of the High Court, placed orders. In any 
event the dispute as to the volumes A>r the sets and the 
interpolation in the documents were of considerable 
relevance. But the High Court has lightly brushed aside 
this aspect. (Para - 5) [955-G-H; 956-A-C] 
C 
1.3 Where a promise is made which is not supported 
by any consideration, the promise cannot bring an action 
on the basis of that promise. (Para - 7) 
1.4 Doctrine of "Promissory Estoppel" has been 
0 evolved by the courts, on the principles of equity, to avoid 
injustice. (Para - 7) [956-D-E] 
1.5 This Court invoked the doct

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.