Back
2004 Supreme(Gau) 344
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Aftab H.Saikia, J.
B.K.M.Composite Farm -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam -Resopndent
W.P.(C) Nos. 217 of 2002 and 958 of 2004
Decided On : 18-05-2004
B.Barman, S.Banik, K.Goswami, H.Roy, D.N.Bhattacharyya, A.K.Goswami, B.C.Das
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not applicable in the case of disputed possession of business premises, and the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands.
Headnote:
Estoppel - Possession of Business Premises - Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation Ltd. - Communication dated 15.12.94, 20.7.97 - The court discussed the legal principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in the context of possession of business premises by the petitioner. The court found that the communication dated 15.12.94 did not clearly specify the area of land, and the permission was conditional upon executing a lease agreement. The court concluded that the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not applicable in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partnership farm, was permitted to develop premises by the Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation Ltd. for setting up a Poultry/Piggery farm on lease initially for 25 years. The petitioner claimed continuous possession based on a communication dated 15.12.94 and subsequent actions by the Corporation. The Corporation denied the authenticity of the documents and claimed that the petitioner was in illegal occupation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue was a disputed question of facts and that the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not applicable in this case. The court also noted that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and had obtained an interim order by suppressing material facts.
Issues: Disputed possession of business premises, authenticity of communication dated 15.12.94 and 20.7.97, applicability of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, clean hands doctrine.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the communication dated 15.12.94 did not clearly specify the area of land and the permission was conditional upon executing a lease agreement. The court concluded that the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not applicable in this case. The court also found that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim order, and found the petitioner's claim devoid of merit. No costs were awarded.
Both the writ petitions being WP (c) No. 217/02 as well as WP (c) No. 958/04 filed by the petitioner contain almost matching prayers which may be quoted herein as under:
(a) In WP (c) No. 217/02, the following is the prayer:
"In the premises it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, direction shall not be passed commanding.
i) To in lock the 2 (two) rooms situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex belonging to Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation which including 3 other rooms have been under lawful possession and occupation of the petitioner under implied Lease terms as per Annexure-A and C and to hand over the possession thereof to the petitioner.
ii) Not to disturb the peaceful possession of the business premises of the petitioner situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex as hi ?s entitled to undisturbed and peaceful possession of the business premises under the law and/or pass such other order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. AND Upon showing cause and upon hearing the parties Your Lordship would further graciously be pleased to make the Rule absolute- AND
In the interim, pending disposal of the instant Writ petition. Your Lordship may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2,3,4 and 5 not to disturb the peaceful possession of the all business premises of the petitioner situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex belonging to Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation Ltd. until further orders from this Hon'ble Court."
(a) The petitioners has, in WP (c) No 958/04, sought for following relief:
"In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents more particularly the respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, direction, order shall not be passed commanding-
i. To restore the electricity connection to the said premises of the B. K. M. Composite Farm which has been forcefully disconnected by the respondent authorities on 10.2.04 and. or 'ii. Not to disturb the peaceful possession of the business premises of the petitioner situated at 'Khanapara' Marketing Complex as he is entitled to undisturbed and peaceful possession of the business premises under the law and/or pass such other order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. -AND-
Upon showing cause and upon hearing the parties Your Lordship would further be pleased to make the Rule absolute. -AND-
In the interim, pending disposal of the instant writ petition Your Lordship may further be pleased, to direct the Respondent No. 2 to 7 not to disturb the peaceful possession of the business premises of the petitioner farm situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex belong to the Assam Livestock and poultry Corporation Ltd. and to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner's farm which has been disconnected by the respondent authorities on 10.2.04 until further orders of this Hon'ble Court."
2. Since contentions and prayers made in both the writ petitions are almost common and similar and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the rival parties, both are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Roy, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Goswami and Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. In both the writ petitions, the basic case projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner being the partnership farm comprise
