1. WE do not think that there is anything in this appeal which warrants our interference with the impugned order.

2. THE appellant-petitioner has been given the Ijara of the Ferry-Ghat for one year only. He, however, asserts, unilaterally though, that as he and others concerned were given Ijaras for this Ferry-Ghat for not less than three years on earlier occasions, be had a legitimate expectation that on this occasion also the Ijara of the Ferry-Ghat would be for not less than three years.

The petitioner-appellant has, however, accepted the Ijara for one year without protest and that being so, his case of legitimate expectation for an ijara for a period of not less than three years can no longer show its head. The: doctrine of legitimate expectation is nothing but a further development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Under this principle if there was a representation or a consistent course of conduct from which a person could reasonably expect that something will be done, and has acted accordingly by altering his position or otherwise, he may have a justiciable cause of action. But as alerady stated, the petitioner has accepted the Ijara for one year without any