THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus GITASHREE DUTTA (DEY)

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1061 · Decided: 20-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1061
1061
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
v.
GITASHREE DUTTA (DEY)
(Civil Appeal No. 4254 of 2022)
APRIL 20, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation –
Principle of Estoppel – When not applicable–National Food Security
Act, 2013 – Cancellation of declaration of Fair Price Shop (FPS)
vacancies in view of the implementation of 2013 Act– Correctness
of – Held: Appellants were reposed with a responsibility of
implementing the mandate of the 2013 Act and to bring about
reforms in the existing Public Distribution System – In the present
case, upon scrutiny, it was found that declaration of vacancies vide
notification dtd. 30.01.14 was not in conformity with the 2013 Act
and thus, cancellation of the said notification was necessary for
the implementation of the said Act –Thus, the plea of legitimate
expectation of the respondent does not have any basis – Respondent
being a mere applicant in an un-finalised selection process has no
vested right to seek continuation of the notified vacancies, when by
recalling the vacancy notification, the appellants endeavored to
enforce the statute –There can be no estoppel against a statute –
No material irregularity in issuing the impugned notification dtd.
17.08.15 cancelling the declaration of vacancies –Respondent has
not made out a case of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or mala
fide – Judgment of Division Bench set aside and that of the Single
Judge is restored.
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation vis-
à-vis Principle of Estoppel – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The doctrine of “legitimate expectation” has
been developed in the context of principles of natural justice.
‘Legitimate expectation’ is a public law right whereas ‘promissory
estoppel’ is a private law right. The doctrine of legitimate
expectation in public law is based on the principle of fairness and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
non-arbitrariness in governmental actions. However, the doctrine
of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application
when the legislature has enacted the statute. Further, the
legitimate expectation cannot prevail over a policy introduced
by the Government, which does not suffer from any perversity,
unfairness or unreasonableness or which does not violate any
fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the respondent.
When the decision of public body is in conformity with law or is in
public interest, the plea of legitimate expectation cannot be
sustained. [Paras 10 and 11][1067-B-E]
1.2 There is a necessary inter-play between the plea of
legitimate expectation and Article 14. For a decision to be non-
arbitrary, the reasonable/legitimate expectations of the claimant
have to be considered. However, to decide whether the
expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the
context, is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question
arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s
perception but in larger public interest wherein other more
important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise
have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. The 2013
Act was enacted to provide for food and nutritional security in
human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity
of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with
dignity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
[Paras 14 and 15][1069-A-C, G]
1.3 It is clear from the different provisions of the 2013 Act
that there is a paradigm shift in addressing the problem of food
security from the current welfare approach to a right based
approach. The Act confers legal right on the eligible beneficiaries
to get the essential commodities through fair price shops at a
highly subsidized price. The Act also envisages reforms
necessary for distribution of essential commodities to the ration
card holders. In the present case, upon scrutiny, it was found
that declaration of vacancies vide notification dated 30.01.2014
was not in conformity with the 2013 Act and thus, cancellation of
the said notification was necessary for the implementation of the
provisions of the said Act. In view of above, the plea of legitimate
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
expectation of the respondent is without having any basis. In the
instant case, no promise of any kind was made to continue the
existing policy on the part o

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