2010 Supreme(J&K) 644
Sunil Hali
Reckitt Benckiser – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
Jawahar Lal, Pranav Kohli, AR Madhav Rao, Ajay K. Roy, B.S. Salathia, D.S. Thakur, S.K. Shukla, C.S. Azad, M.K. Sharma, Suraj S.Wazir.
It be further seen that the principle of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and it must yield when equity so requires. This, however, is not the absolute proposition which should bind the Government. The State or any public authority cannot be compelled to carry out a promise which is prohibited by law or which was devoid of the authority or power of the concerned officer of the Government or the authority concerned to make such a promise. The doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, as indicated above, must yield place to the equity, if there is a larger public interest involved. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported as Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P. and others,
(2002) 2 SCC 188. The relevant observations made in this regard in para 24 of the judgment aforementioned be noticed as under:-
"It is equally settled law that the promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is prohibited by law or which was devoid of the authority or power of the officer of the Government or the public authority to make. Doctrine of promissory
Click Here to Read the rest of this document