Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)K.T.Corporation & Others vs India Toursim Development Corporation ... on 18 May, 2009
In India Tourism Development Corporation and Another
(supra), the Court dealt with the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It
was observed that legitimate expectation is not a legal right but a
benefit, relief or a remedy which may ordinarily flow from a promise or
an established practice. The term "established practice" refers to
regular, consistent and practicable certain conduct, process or activity
of the decision making authority. However, the expectation should be
legitimate i.e. logical, reasonable and valid. As legitimate expectation
is not a right, it is not legally enforceable as such and is given a class
just above "fairness in action" but below promissory estoppel.
Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 September, 2006
The
said principle was referred in Ram Pravesh Singh versus State of
Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381, wherein the Supreme Court has observed
that legitimate expectation can only entitle a person to seek
WPC No.3383/2008 Page 12
opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed or ask for
explanation as to the cause of denial.
S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied upon the
decision of the Delhi High Court in C.P. Mittal and others versus
Union of India 2007(9) AD (Del) 330. In this decision, a single Judge
of this Court had struck down enhancement of license fee by 102%
payable by PCO operators in the railway station platform. In the said
case, the PCO operators were given agency as a measure of
rehabilitation and on compassionate basis like disability and
unemployment. The allotment was a social welfare measure. In these
circumstances, it was observed that standard of highest bidding
would be inappropriate because the underlining social welfare
measure would be undermined. With regard to the facts, the Court
considered it to be unconscionable to have a take it or leave it
attitude adopted by monopolistic State, especially when the
bargaining powers of the petitioners therein was unequal. The State
must act reasonably and in a non-arbitrary manner even in
contractual and commercial subjects. The ratio of the said decision
does not support the petitioners who are pure and simple commercial
persons and are engaged in profit making activities. Lower license
fee in fact, will cause prejudice to the social purpose for which the
respondent-DMRC has been established i.e. to provide public
transport in Delhi at a reasonable cost. Subsidizing commercial
WPC No.3383/2008 Page 13
establishments of the petitioners for their personal gains at the cost of
DMRC's revenue would violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
Bareilly Development Authority & Anr vs Ajai Pal Singh & Ors on 17 February, 1989
12. On the question of fixation or quantum of costs or rate of
license fee, court's power to interfere while exercising power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited.
In policy matters relating to costs and fixation of license fee, the State
has wide discretion and flexibility especially when it relates to
commercial properties. (Refer, Bareilly Development Authority
versus Ajay Pal (1989) 2 SCC 116; Sheela Wanti versus Delhi
Development Authority (2002 7 SCC 135). License fee/costs can
be struck down only if it is contrary to the contract and is per se
WPC No.3383/2008 Page 7
arbitrary and discriminatory when different license fees are being
charged from identically situated persons without any rationale. The
explanation and reasoning given by the respondent DMRC does not
disclose arbitrariness and discrimination.
M/S.Style (Dress Land) vs Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr on 18 August, 1999
In fact, the Supreme Court in Style (Dress Land) versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1999) 7 SCC 89 upheld the increase
in lease money from Rs.2,671/-p.m. to Rs.14,000/-p.m. after expiry
of the earlier lease period. Referring the stand taken by Union
territory of Chandigarh that the shops in question were occupied by
private individuals and some of them were further let-out, the
Supreme Court agreed that the State Authority was entitled to charge
market rent and the same was justified, reasonable and
constitutional. The judgment of the High Court was upheld and it was
held that the procedure adopted and made basis for enhancing the
rent to market value cannot be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or
unreasonable. In the said case, the Supreme Court also reiterated
the principle that inaction in respect of some individual/tenants cannot
be made basis for setting aside action initiated against others.
Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995
WPC No.3383/2008 Page 15
Similarly in Chandigarh Administration versus Jagjit Singh
(1995) 1 SCC 745 it has been held that if an order in favour of a third
person is found to be contrary to law, such illegal or unwarranted
order cannot be made the basis for issuing a writ compelling the
authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted
order. In such cases, a party cannot urge violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution alleging discrimination.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Food Corporation Of India vs Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries on 11 November, 1992
22. Similarly, decision in Food Corporation of India versus
Kamdhenu Cattle Field Industries (1993) 1 SCC 91 is also not
applicable. In the said case, the respondent's highest tender was
WPC No.3383/2008 Page 14
superseded by a significantly higher bid made during the
negotiations, with all tenderers been given an equal opportunity to
compete by revising their bids. The Supreme Court observed as
under:
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., A ... vs Transport And Dock Workers Union And ... on 7 March, 2007
In the case of Indian
Oil Corporation versus Union of India, (Writ Petition (Civil) No.
3823/1992 decided on 29th November, 2006) it was held that the
lease rent was increased arbitrarily on the assumption that the
business was profitable but the said assumption was arbitrary in the
absence of any material and therefore was struck down.
1