Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002
43. Thus, as per operation of law even the respondent is a tenant of the
petitioner. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that there is no
estoppal against law. In Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi
Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash Tiwari &
Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127; I.T.C. Ltd. Vs.
Person Incharge, AMC, Kakinada & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1796; State of
U.P. & Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh
Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675; and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup &
Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194), it has been held that promissory estoppel does
not apply against the Statute. It has been held that, "(The Adminstration)
only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to
subsist.......... A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law
RC ARC NO. 6037/16 Sushila Devi Jain Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gupta Page 20 of 44
can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The
question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this case because there can
be no estoppel against a statute.