2021 Supreme(Del) 408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Najma – Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 8956 of 2020
Decided On : 22-07-2021

Point of Law: Concept of legitimate expectation - When considering legitimate expectation which it has created, Authority is entitled to take into account current statutory framework, allocation scheme, legitimate expectation of other people, its assets both in terms of what housing it has at its disposal and in terms of what assets it has or could have available.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Governmental notification - Doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel - Seek enforcement of promise made by Chief Minister of Delhi - Petitioners are daily wage labourers/workers, who claim to be tenants who are unable to pay their monthly rent, and Petitioner No. 4 is stated to be a landlord who hasn’t been able to receive monthly rent from his tenant - Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked in absence of a clear governmental policy and whether in light of judgment of ld. Division Bench of this Court in Gaurav Jain vs. Union of India and Another [W.P. (C) No. 3519/2020, decided on 15th June, 2020], present writ petition itself would be maintainable - Whether political statement can be treated as a policy of government, and whether doctrine of legitimate expectation can arise on basis of a political statement made by ld. Senior Counsel, submits that doctrine of legitimate expectation can only be based on actual governmental policy or a governmental notification or an executive decision, and not on a mere political statement.

Finding of the Court:

Doctrines of promissory estoppel as also legitimate expectation are based on the axiom that the people trust the government. In a democratic setup, persons who hold an elected office, and especially heads of government, heads of State and those holding responsible positions are expected to make responsible assurances/promises to their citizens, especially in times of crisis and distress doctrines of promissory estoppel as also legitimate expectation are based on axiom that the people trust the government. In a democratic setup, persons who hold an elected office, and especially heads of government, heads of State and those holding responsible positions are expected to make responsible assurances/promises to their citizens, especially in times of crisis and distress - It clear that in general, a lump sum submission could not be entertained in a PIL, however Court had also clearly allowed individuals to approach Court. Thus, it is submitted that the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the doctrine of promissory estoppel are applicable to present case and the ld. Division Bench has categorically permitted individual persons to canvass their case in accordance with law before court. Accordingly, he submits that the present petition is clearly maintainable - Absence of a clear governmental policy, doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked. Secondly in light of ld. Division Bench judgment passed in case of Gaurav Jain (supra) present petition is not maintainable, as Petitioner’s counsel was PIL litigant in said petition. Petition is thus not bona-fide in nature - Doctrine of legitimate expectation in the context of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and, importantly, held that while doctrine of legitimate expectation may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, however if there is failure of consideration of legitimate expectation of citizens, decision taken by public authority would be arbitrary - Authority was under a duty to consider application of the Applicants’ housing, based on their legitimate expectation, and provide reasons which could be tested in court of law, if it chose to not provide the housing. Therefore, the Court finally directed the Housing authority to consider the applicants’ applications for suitable housing on the basis that they had a Legitimate expectation towards being provided with a suitable accommodation, with secure tenancy - Promise/ assurance/representation given by CM clearly amounts to an enforceable promise, the implementation of which ought to be considered by the Government. Good governance requires that promises made to citizens, by those who govern, are not broken, without valid and justifiable reasons - When a public authority wishes to renege on its promise, it must take into account the legitimate expectation of the public. Unless there are valid reasons recognized by law for not giving effect to the same, the authorities are bound to give reasons so that the propriety of such reasons can be tested in a Court of law.

Result: Petition is disposed of.