Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
M/S.Srm Hotels Private Limited vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 21 June, 2024 cites

Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 September, 2006

In Ram Pravesh Singh & ors v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381, it was held that the term “established practice” refers to a regular, consistent, predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision making authority. The decisions holding the field do not however limit the factors that can give rise to legitimate expectation. A water body can be fed by more than one inlet. Likewise, legitimate expectation can also spring from a reasonable person's understanding of normative scheme of things. The applicant is entitled to presume that the authority will conduct himself in a fair manner. And if the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/18 W.P(MD)No.13133 of 2024 authority is unfair in his dealing, there is certainly a breach of one's legitimate expectation. There is nothing strange about this conclusion. When in the hierarchy of values, legitimate expectation is placed above fairness, certainly, the unfair response of the official can be the foundation for laying a claim based on breach of legitimate expectation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 212 - Full Document

Anoop Baranwal vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 2 March, 2023

In Anoop Baranwal v. UOI (2023) 6 SCC 161, it was observed that the society has a legitimate expectation to be governed by proper constitutional governance. Good governance is a constitutional expectation. Officials have to conduct themselves reasonably and discharge their functions responsibly. This is an aspect of good governance. When a reasonable request is made, it has to be properly considered. That one's reasonable request will receive proper consideration can definitely be one's legitimate expectation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 270 - Cited by 6 - K Joseph - Full Document

Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corp ... vs P P Suresh And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 4 October, 2019

629), the only question raised by the Respondent in the Appeal was whether he was entitled to have a fair inquiry under common law, before a removal order was made against him. Without expressing any opinion on violation of principles of natural justice, the right of hearing of the Respondent in the peculiar facts of the case was adjudicated upon. It was held that the Respondent had a ‘legitimate expectation’ of being accorded a hearing before an order of removal was passed (cited in Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation v. P.P.Suresh, (2019) 9 SCC 710).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 114 - L N Rao - Full Document

Human Welfare Society, Yavatmal Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ... on 13 December, 2022

Through the 2000s the English courts accepted the view of the majority (vide R (Rashid) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) EWCA 744). The courts held that even though the particular claimant did not know of the relevant policies, this did not prevent a legitimate expectation arising; the relevant expectation was one that the authority would apply its policies unless there were good reasons for deviating from the relevant policy on the facts of the case. This conclusion can be justified only on the basis that expectation of fair treatment does not require prior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/18 W.P(MD)No.13133 of 2024 knowledge of past practice. If something is to be as it ought to be, and the outcome is not in accord with the normative standard, then, the applicant can assail the order on the ground of breach of legitimate expectation that fair procedure was not adopted.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1